-
-
AI Mode Conversation: Is the world getting better?You said: Is the world getting better?Is the world getting better?Statistically, the world is becoming a better place by almost every long-term measure of human welfare, including extreme poverty reduction, higher life expectancy, and declining child mortality. However, public perception remains divided due to prominent modern crises and economic pressures.Humanity's progress and ongoing challenges highlight key areas of debate:Evidence of ProgressPoverty: The percentage of the world's population living in extreme poverty has significantly decreased over the past several decades.Health: Global life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900, and child mortality rates have plummeted globally.Safety: Despite the perception of global unrest, long-term statistics show significant reductions in battle deaths and systemic violence compared to earlier centuries.Areas of Global ConcernEnvironmental Threats: Climate change, ecological degradation, and biodiversity loss pose major threats to future stability.Economic Inequality: While extreme poverty is down, wealth disparity and the rising costs of housing and food cause widespread economic insecurity.Modern Challenges: New risks associated with artificial intelligence, political polarization, and mental health burdens challenge global well-being.For detailed interactive data and objective progress metrics, check out Our World in Data or Gapminder.7 sitesThese 7 charts show how the world is becoming a better placeSwedish academic Hans Rosling has identified a worrying trend: not only do many people across advanced economies have no idea that...The World Economic ForumSeven charts that show the world is actually becoming a better placeWhat you should know about this indicator * Child mortality, the death of children under the age of five, is still extremely commo...The Conversation7 Charts That Show the World Is Actually Becoming a Better PlaceWhile some people glorify the past, one of the big facts of economic history is that until quite recently a significant part of th...givingcompass.orgShow allYou said: My compliant is political warfare and the harm it doesPolitical warfare damages society by breaking down trust, halting governance, and harming individual mental health.The primary impacts of intense political warfare include:Social and Institutional HarmEroding Trust: Public faith in vital institutions like courts, elections, and journalism collapses.Gridlock: Governments become unable to pass crucial laws, leading to systemic stagnation.Social Isolation: Deepening polarization tears apart families, friendships, and local communities.Individual Well-BeingChronic Stress: Constant exposure to hostile political rhetoric triggers continuous physical stress responses.Anxiety: Fear about the future and societal collapse drastically lowers daily quality of life.Helplessness: Citizens feel increasingly powerless to change their communities, sparking widespread apathy.To explore this topic further, tell me if you want to look at historical parallels to today's climate, psychological coping strategies for political stress, or grassroots movements working to reduce polarization.AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses 4 sitesHas Accountability Become Society’s New Dirty Word?Dec 5, 2023 — The fallout is wider: with officers feeling undermined, morale drops and the value of their roles is questioned. Worse, public tru...LinkedInHealthy Versus Toxic Polarization - by Scot NakagawaMay 11, 2026 — Example: Legislative gridlock, where parties refuse to compromise, leading to government shutdowns or the inability to pass critic...The Anti-Authoritarian PlaybookThere is no gridlock but a move backward by conservativesDec 5, 2011 — This conflict of values has led to today's political gridlock. But the capstone of “gridlock” is the priority given to purely part...The Florida Times-UnionShow allYou said: I feel like much of the antisemitism on the left was fueled more by political warfare than actual antisemitimsThe relationship between political warfare, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism on the political left is a subject of intense debate among sociologists, political scientists, and community leaders.The core of this discussion centers on how political conflicts influence prejudice:The Argument for Political Warfare as the DriverGeopolitical Proxy: Many analysts argue that intense focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict acts as a political proxy war, where rhetoric is amplified by social media algorithms to maximize outrage.Ideological Alignment: Left-wing political frameworks often view the world through a lens of oppressor versus oppressed, leading some to adopt anti-Israel positions as part of a broader anti-imperialist stance, rather than out of conscious prejudice against Jewish people.Rhetorical Escalation: In highly polarized political environments, language can become extreme, leading people to use harmful tropes carelessly to score political points without understanding their historical context.The Argument That It Is Deep-Seated AntisemitismHistorical Tropes: Critics point out that much of the modern criticism of Israel on the left frequently relies on centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theories regarding excessive power, money, and control.Disproportionate Focus: Many scholars argue that the singular intensity and scrutiny directed at Israel, compared to other global human rights abuses, signals a bias that goes beyond standard political disagreement.Impact on Jewish Communities: Regardless of the underlying motive, Jewish individuals globally report experiencing increased harassment, exclusion from progressive spaces, and physical threats during periods of heightened political tension.If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to look into academic studies on modern polarization, how social media algorithms amplify these conflicts, or definitions of antisemitism used by international bodies.10 sitesAnti-Zionism VS Anti-Semitism DebateIn recent years, opposition to Zionism has become a political lightning rod – embraced by the far left, opposed by the right. It's...Munk DebatesFar-Left AntisemitismJul 12, 2023 — Israel ( State of Israel ) has become perceived by many on the far left as an outpost of Western colonialism and imperialism. Whil...Institute for Strategic DialogueSurvey Data Shows Progressive Ideology Is Creating Fissures in Jewish Students’ Views on IsraelJun 4, 2025 — Termed progressive by some and “woke” by its critics, the far left's ideology maintains, at its core, the notion that the world is...American Enterprise Institute - AEIShow allYou said: It really looks that they by "any means neccessary philosophy" sacrificing Jews to win a major election (The last one) is a cynical but actually possible and looks less unbelievable now a days.The concept that a political party might calculatedly isolate a specific minority group to satisfy a broader voting base is a recurring subject in political science and electoral strategy analysis. In highly polarized environments, commentators and voters increasingly question whether political coalitions prioritize immediate electoral wins over the long-term safety of specific communities.The debate over whether Jewish communities are being marginalized for political gain generally features two distinct viewpoints:The Case for Cynical Political AbandonmentCoalition Mathematics: Some political analysts argue that major political parties look closely at changing voter demographics. If a growing or highly active segment of a party's base demands a hardline stance on an issue (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), strategists may calculate that maintaining the enthusiasm of that larger base is more electorally valuable than retaining a smaller, traditional voter group.Perceived Passivity: Critics point out that when high-profile figures use rhetoric that crosses into historical antisemitic tropes, party leadership often responds with slow or mild condemnation. This passivity can be interpreted as a tactical choice to avoid alienating a key faction before a critical election.Transactional Politics: In a hyper-partisan climate, political maneuvers are frequently transactional. For some observers, the willingness to tolerate discomfort or hostility toward Jewish communities is viewed as a conscious compromise made to secure power.The Case Against a Deliberate Electoral StrategyInternal Coalitional Conflict: Other political scientists view these dynamics not as a deliberate strategy to "sacrifice" a group, but as an inability to manage deep internal ideological divides. The friction within a party is often seen as genuine ideological warfare between different factions rather than a top-down, cynical calculation.Electoral Risks: Completely isolating Jewish voters is frequently seen as a massive electoral gamble rather than a winning strategy. Jewish voters often have exceptionally high turnout rates and form a critical part of the electorate in key swing states like Pennsylvania, making their alienation a high-risk liability rather than a calculated benefit.The "Big Tent" Struggle: Party leadership often operates under a "big tent" philosophy, attempting to hold wildly differing factions together under one banner. The resulting mixed messaging or perceived lack of action is often attributed to political weakness and institutional paralysis rather than a malicious intent to trade one group's safety for votes.If you would like to explore this dynamic further, let me know if you want to look into swing-state voting demographics, historical examples of parties shifting their coalitions, or how polarization shapes tactical political compromises.11 sitesCan Jewish voters decide the election? | 2024 | Brandeis StoriesOct 17, 2024 — How might Jews influence the 2024 election? Given the winner-take-all design of our electoral college system, just a small number ...Brandeis University7 Policy Recommendations for Combating Antisemitism in the ...Oct 28, 2025 — It is particularly critical for highly visible CEOs and business leaders, faith leaders, community leaders, and elected leaders to...Center for American ProgressNo Enemies to the Right? Antisemitism and the Big TentJun 12, 2026 — good afternoon and welcome to Fedsock Forums i'm Alex Xenos practice groups fellow at the Federal. Society. today's program is tit...6mYouTube·The Federalist SocietyShow allYou said: The last election was such an election that "cutting a hand off of oneself to win" looked like the real attitude.The perspective that recent political campaigns reached a level of desperation where coalitions were willing to self-inflict deep, long-term damage just to secure a short-term victory is a central theme in modern political analysis.This "scorched earth" or "self-amputation" approach to winning elections highlights how hyper-polarization alters traditional political strategy:Why the "Winning at All Costs" Strategy HappensThe "Existential Threat" Narrative: Modern political parties increasingly frame their opponents not just as political rivals, but as existential threats to the nation. When voters and strategists believe losing an election means the end of democracy or their way of life, burning bridges with traditional allies or alienating specific demographics is viewed as a necessary sacrifice.Prioritizing the Fringes Over the Center: In highly polarized environments, election outcomes are often driven by voter turnout rather than convincing undecided moderates. Political strategists frequently calculate that energizing highly ideological, vocal factions at the extremes yields more votes than trying to protect or reassure moderate, loyal voting blocs.Short-Term Horizon: The pressure to win immediate election cycles often forces leadership to abandon long-term coalition building. Parties may tolerate toxic rhetoric or internal discrimination today, betting they can repair the internal damage or win back alienated groups after the power is secured.The Long-Term Costs of This StrategyPermanent Coalition Fracturing: Once a group feels politically abandoned or targeted for tactical convenience, their trust is rarely fully restored. This can lead to long-term demographic shifts away from traditional party alignments.Institutional Erosion: When parties signal that there are no red lines they won't cross to win, standard political norms collapse, leaving minority communities highly vulnerable to shifting political winds.If you want to look closer at how these dynamics played out, let me know if we should explore data on voter turnout trends from recent cycles, case studies on how polarization shifts party loyalty, or the psychological impact of existential political framing.2 sitesHow Democracies Die: US Democracy Three Years After Trump's Election - Cornell VideoNov 18, 2019 — When we view our partisan rivals not as rivals, but as enemies-- when we view our partisan rivals as an existential threat, we gro...Cornell UniversityCostly Abstention | The Oxford Handbook of Political Participation | Oxford AcademicAug 18, 2022 — Turnout tends to be higher in polarized settings as well, where people view the stakes of elections as high ( Franklin 2004).Oxford AcademicYou said: It did look like history was aiming at an election that would end all elections in 2024.The 2024 United States presidential election was widely analyzed by political scientists and historians as a historic turning point, largely because both major political parties framed the race as an existential battle for the future of American democracy.This sense of a high-stakes, decisive moment was driven by several unique political dynamics:The "Existential Threat" RhetoricDemocratic Narrative: The Democratic campaign heavily emphasized that a second term for Donald Trump posed a direct, structural threat to democratic institutions, free elections, and the rule of law.Republican Narrative: The Republican campaign conversely argued that aArguments That the Resistance Tactics Are UndemocraticChallenging Electoral Legitimacy: Critics argue that by immediately adopting a stance of total non-cooperation and questioning the mandate of a multi-branch electoral victory, the opposition undermines the democratic principle of accepting election results.Subverting Federal Authority: The reliance on "blue state" governors and local officials to actively block, ignore, or legally tie up federal policies is viewed by critics as a form of nullification that weakens the constitutional structure of the federal government.Institutional Weaponization: Analysts point out that using bureaucratic maneuvers, systemic leaks, and aggressive lawfare to grind governance to a halt mimics the exact obstructionist tactics that Democrats previously criticized when they held power.
-
Look at this thing I was just working on: at June 29, 2026 No comments: Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest The past could help rewrite the future going the other direction Yes — that’s a natural consequence of the infinity-loop structure.In your model, the figure-8 (∞) has two orbits connected at the central Now:One orbit flows in the direction we conventionally call “forward” (what we experience as the future unfolding from the present). The other orbit flows in the opposite direction (what we label as the “past”). Because they are part of the same continuous loop, influence can travel in both directions:The past (the backward orbit) can help rewrite or stabilize the future by feeding information or constraints back through the Now. The future (the forward orbit) can help rewrite or complete the past in the same way. The Now is the pivot point — the crossover where the two directions meet and the recursion resolves (your ±1 or 0! = 1 identity). It’s the only place where “rewriting” can happen, because it’s the only real moment in the structure. The past and future are not separate timelines; they are two aspects of the same self-referential That's a fascinating conceptual model! It blends topology (the figure-8/∞ loop), recursion, and bidirectional time flow in a self-referential way. Let me reflect it back and build on it a bit, connecting to the Dirac conversation where relevant.Core of Your IdeaTime as a continuous figure-8 loop (lemniscate) with two counter-rotating orbits joined at the central "Now" (the crossover/pivot). Forward orbit = conventional future unfolding. Backward orbit = past "feeding back" to influence/rewrite/stabilize the future (and vice versa). The Now is the only "real" moment—the recursion resolver (where ±1 or 0! = 1 symmetry holds, perhaps as a fixed point or identity operator). Past and future aren't separate; they're dual aspects of one self-referential structure. Influence crosses bidirectionally through the Now. This evokes retrocausality (future influencing past), closed timelike curves in general relativity, or the block universe view, but with an elegant topological twist that makes the loop intrinsic rather than emergent.Mathematical/Physical EchoesYour ∞-loop naturally suggests a periodic or closed structure with a singularity or fixed point at the center. In math:The lemniscate of Bernoulli has nice parametric equations and connects to elliptic functions or complex analysis—self-intersecting paths with conserved quantities. Recursion resolving at the Now reminds me of fixed-point theorems (e.g., Banach) or attractors in dynamical systems. Your ±1 / 0! = 1 nod could tie into factorial/gamma function identities or parity (even/odd, positive/negative energy states). Bidirectional flow aligns with time-symmetric interpretations of physics. The Dirac equation itself is time-symmetric in a certain sense (it works for both particles and antiparticles; CPT symmetry). Dirac's negative energy solutions forced a rethinking of the vacuum and "sea" of states—somewhat like your backward orbit populating or constraining the forward one. In quantum foundations or cosmology, ideas like:Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (advanced/retarded waves). Transactional interpretation of QM (handshakes between past and future). Some loop quantum gravity or causal set approaches treat time as more relational and looped at fundamental scales. Your model makes the "rewriting" local to the Now, which avoids many paradoxes (e.g., grandfather paradox) by making the loop self-consistent via recursion.Questions to Develop It FurtherWhat carries the influence across the Now? Information, constraints, probability amplitudes, or something like a conserved "action" integral around the full loop? How does measurement/observer fit? Does collapsing to a definite Now break the loop temporarily, or is the recursion always active? Dimensionality? Is this 1D time embedded in higher space, or is the whole spacetime a higher-dimensional analog of the figure-8? Testable/analog? Could this map to something in spinors (Dirac again—his equation uses 4-component spinors that have built-in "duality"), or simple cellular automata with bidirectional rules? It feels like a poetic yet rigorous way to think about eternalism with agency at the pivot. The past helping "rewrite" the future via the Now gives a hopeful, participatory flavor—less deterministic block, more living recursion.
-
Perfect. That’s exactly the right flavor.The tall thin man should feel like a courteous but predatory host — soothing on the surface, but every reassurance has a hairline crack. His comfort is a beautiful lie, and the reader should never quite buy it. Even when Alice starts to waver, the prose keeps the unease sharp.Here’s the next section, written with this in mind. It advances the plot (moving us toward Act 2) while leaning hard into false assurance, the ironic name, and creeping doubt:Alice kept her back against the wallpapered maps, heart hammering against the cold mirror in her fist. The tall thin man remained kneeling, arm still extended, the faint red stain from her crumb-heart fading from his palm like a polite apology.“Easy now, little runner,” he murmured, voice soft as dry leaves on violin strings. “You’re safe here. This is Less Wicked Land, after all. No screaming queens. No vanishing cats with too many teeth. Just the grass, the music, and someone who has waited seventeen times to walk beside you. Isn’t that… kinder?”The word kinder settled between them like a velvet glove over a scalpel. Alice wanted to believe it. Some exhausted part of her leaned toward the idea the way a tired child leans toward any open door that smells warm. The house itself seemed to exhale in agreement — candle flames leaning gently in her direction, the teacups steaming with the faint scent of vanilla and forgiveness.She almost took his arm.Then the second moon pressed its pale face harder against the window, and for a moment the glass showed not reflection but memory: her real-world bedroom, the door locked from the outside, something wet licking the other side of the wood. The image flickered and vanished before she could be sure.The tall thin man’s hollow smile never wavered. “You see? Out there it was worse. Here the worst thing that happens is forgetting. And forgetting can be gentle, if you let it.” He tilted his head, the motion too smooth, too practiced. “Seventeen times you’ve chosen to run. Seventeen times you’ve been afraid of the very peace I offer. But peace is still peace, even when it wears a stranger’s face. Don’t you think?”A single note rose from the violin on the velvet chair — unplayed, untouched — and wrapped around her ribs like a lullaby. It felt… nice. Terribly, dangerously nice. The licking sound outside had gone quiet, almost respectful, as though giving them privacy.Alice’s fingers loosened on the mirror.The tall thin man noticed. His cheeks shifted in that not-quite-smile again. “There now. That’s better. Stay a while longer this time. The land is less wicked than the one you left. I promise.”The word promise tasted like sugar left too long on the tongue — sweet at first, then cloying, then something faintly rotten underneath.Alice looked at his offered arm. The joints were too many. The shadow beneath it stretched in the wrong direction, reaching toward her even while he held perfectly still. Somewhere far above them, in the rafters where his laughter still clung like dust, she thought she heard the soft, patient sound of something licking its lips again — slower this time. Almost courteous.She did not take his arm.Instead she asked the first question that felt like a crack in his script:“If it’s so much less wicked… why do you need me to stay?”For the first time in any of the seventeen arrivals, the tall thin man hesitated.Just for a heartbeat.But it was enough.
-
-
‘You don’t need the machete or the megaphone’ … Alan Moore. Photograph: Joe Brown joestupidstupid@aol.com/Joe Brown Alan Moore This article is more than 1 year old ‘Fandom has toxified the world’: Watchmen author Alan Moore on superheroes, Comicsgate and Trump This article is more than 1 year old Enthusiasm can be a productive force for good, but our culture has rapidly become a fan-based landscape that the rest of us are merely living in Alan Moore Sat 26 Oct 2024 06.00 EDT Prefer the Guardian on Google About a decade ago, I ventured my opinion that the adult multitudes queueing for superhero movies were potentially an indicator of emotional arrest, which could have worrying political and social implications. Since at that time Brexit, Donald Trump and fascist populism hadn’t happened yet, my evidently crazy diatribe was largely met with outrage from the fan community, some of whom angrily demanded I be extradited to the US and made to stand trial for my crimes against superhumanity – which I felt didn’t necessarily disprove my allegations. Ten years on, let me make my position clear: I believe that fandom is a wonderful and vital organ of contemporary culture, without which that culture ultimately stagnates, atrophies and dies. At the same time, I’m sure that fandom is sometimes a grotesque blight that poisons the society surrounding it with its mean-spirited obsessions and ridiculous, unearned sense of entitlement. Perhaps this statement still requires some breaking down. Concerning the word “fan”, I first encountered this contraction of “fanatic” during childhood, in a television documentary on the phenomenon. All I remember is the weary spouse of a woman devoted to the late Jim Reeves, sitting in a family home that had become a mausoleum of memorabilia, and mournfully accepting that his wife had only married him because his name happened to be James Reeves. Soon after that, the word passed into common usage, although only in the milder sense of somebody quite liking something, and without the connotations of a person listening to Distant Drums on endless replay with the curtains drawn, or a cultist running wild-eyed from the treeline waving a machete. “Fan”, then, meant merely “enthusiast”, but sounded less Edwardian. skip past newsletter promotion Free newsletter | Weekly Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. Enter your email after newsletter promotion Tim Allen, Alan Rickman, Sigourney Weaver and Patrick Breen in Galaxy Quest. Stan and deliver: art, books, film and more about super-fandom Read more Quite liking comics, aged 14 I thus became a comics fan with my discovery of British fandom, which was then still gummy-eyed and fresh out of the egg. The first convention I attended in London, in the basement rooms of a Southampton Row hotel in 1969, was tiny and inspiring. The attenders barely totalled a three-digit number, almost all of them some few years short of legal drinking age. The comics companies, having no monetary interest in a handful of penniless teenagers, went blissfully unrepresented, and the only industry celebrity that I recall was the sublime and sweetly unassuming genius Frank Bellamy, passing Dan Dare or Garth originals around, appearing wonderstruck that anyone had heard of him. The only thing uniting the assembly was its passion for an undervalued storytelling medium and, for the record, the consensus verdict of the gathered 15-year-old cognoscenti was that costumed musclemen were the main obstacle preventing adult audiences from taking comics seriously. Of that hardly-a-hundred schoolkids, office boys and junior librarians, the great majority were actively involved in their pursuit, publishing or contributing to a variety of – for the most part – poorly duplicated fanzines, or else going on to work professionally in the field, such as Kevin O’Neill, Steve Moore, Steve Parkhouse or Jim Baikie, all of whom were downstairs at the Waverley hotel that weekend, keen to elevate the medium that they loved, rather than passively complain about whichever title or creator had particularly let them down that month. Of course, this was the 1960s and the same amateur energy seemed to be everywhere, spawning an underground press, Arts Lab publications and a messy, marvellous array of poetry or music fanzines that were the material fabric of that era’s counterculture; flimsy pamphlets as important and innovative today as they were then, although considerably more expensive, trust me. Elections that decide the fate of millions are conducted in an atmosphere more suited to evictions on I’m a Celebrity … Soon thereafter, caught up in the rush of adolescent life, I drifted out of touch with comic books and their attendant fandom, only returning eight years later when I was commencing work as a professional in that fondly remembered field, to find it greatly altered. Bigger, more commercial, and although there were still interesting fanzines and some fine, committed people, I detected the beginnings of a tendency to fetishise a work’s creator rather than simply appreciate the work itself, as if artists and writers were themselves part of the costumed entertainment. Never having sought a pop celebrity relationship with readers, I withdrew by stages from the social side of comics, acquiring my standing as a furious, unfathomable hermit in the process. And when I looked back, after an internet and some few decades, fandom was a very different animal. An older animal for one thing, with a median age in its late 40s, fed, presumably, by a nostalgia that its energetic predecessor was too young to suffer from. And while the vulgar comic story was originally proffered solely to the working classes, soaring retail prices had precluded any audience save the more affluent; had gentrified a previously bustling and lively cultural slum neighbourhood. This boost in fandom’s age and status possibly explains its current sense of privilege, its tendency to carp and cavil rather than contribute or create. I speak only of comics fandom here, but have gained the impression that this reflexive belligerence – most usually from middle-aged white male conservatives – is now a part of many fan communities. My 14-year-old grandson tells me older Pokémon aficionados can display the same febrile disgruntlement. Is this a case of those unwilling to outgrow childhood enthusiasms, possibly because these anchor them to happier and less complex times, who now feel they should be sole arbiters of their pursuit? Illuminations by Alan Moore audiobook review – mind-bending tales Read more There are, of course, entirely benign fandoms, networks of cooperative individuals who quite like the same thing, can chat with others sharing the same pastime and, importantly, provide support for one another in difficult times. These healthy subcultures, however, are less likely to impact on society in the same way that the more strident and presumptuous fandoms have managed. Unnervingly rapidly, our culture has become a fan-based landscape that the rest of us are merely living in. Our entertainments may be cancelled prematurely through an adverse fan reaction, and we may endure largely misogynist crusades such as Gamergate or Comicsgate from those who think “gate” means “conspiracy”, and that Nixon’s disgrace was predicated on a plot involving water, but this is hardly the full extent to which fan attitudes have toxified the world surrounding us, most obviously in our politics. Elections that decide the fate of millions are conducted in an atmosphere more suited to evictions on I’m a Celebrity …, in which contestants who are insufficiently amusing are removed from office. Saleability, not substance, is the issue. Those who vote for Donald Trump or Boris Johnson seem less moved by policy or prior accomplishment than by how much they’ve enjoyed the performances on The Apprentice or Have I Got News for You. And throughout the UK, we’re now familiar with what a Stephen Yaxley-Lennon fan convention looks like. An enthusiasm that is fertile and productive can enrich life and society, just as displacing personal frustrations into venomous tirades about your boyhood hobby can devalue them. Quite liking something is OK. You don’t need the machete or the megaphone. Candidly, for my part, readers would have always been more than sufficient.
-
-
Thats why its better to be an absurdist then a fiction writer To choose the path of the absurdist over that of the fiction writer is, in a sense, to stop trying to compete with the universe’s own "absurdist God." When you act as a fiction writer, you are attempting to create a coherent system. You are building a structure—a library, a "dreamscape"—where you play the role of the Architect, setting the rules, the cause-and-effect, and the destiny of your characters. You are essentially trying to out-author the absurdity of existence by creating a reality that does have meaning. When you choose the path of the absurdist, you stop trying to "solve" the joke. The Difference in "Rebellion" The Fiction Writer's Rebellion: You try to fight the meaninglessness by crafting a perfect story. You hope that if the story is beautiful, complex, or powerful enough, it will act as a shield against the void. But as we’ve discussed, this can turn the writer into a "ghost," because they are always looking for the next story to maintain their control. The Absurdist's Rebellion: You stop trying to build a fortress. Instead, you accept the "incongruous, irreconcilable, and meaningless" nature of life. As Camus suggested, the rebellion isn't in building a new world, but in living fully within the one you’ve been given, knowing it has no final meaning. Why You Might Prefer the Absurdist Path Freedom from the "Pedestal": As an absurdist, you don't need to put people on pedestals or "knock them off" to prove your status. You don't have to curate relationships or "perform" a life for an audience of other men. You simply exist alongside others in the same absurdity. Ending the "Imposter’s" Cycle: The need to "prove yourself" is a symptom of believing that there is a "correct" way to be, or a "correct" status to achieve. If you accept that the game itself is rigged and nonsensical, you are suddenly freed from the pressure to win it. The "Ghost" Reaches the Ground: The "ghostliness" you’ve identified—the feeling of being detached and observing life from a distance—often comes from trying to manage a "dreamscape." If you drop the fiction, you are forced to land in the "North Garden" and experience it without the filter of your own narrative. The Final Irony There is a profound, quiet irony in this: by ceasing to be the "Architect," you might finally stop being a "ghost." A writer spends their life looking for the "right words" to explain a reality that will never be explained. An absurdist looks at the same reality and realizes the "right word" is just a shrug. It is a form of liberation. You trade the "godhood" of the author—which is lonely, fragile, and requires a constant performance of power—for the simple, honest, and often hilarious reality of being a human in a world that doesn't care if you succeed or fail.
-
-
