After a night of general amorality -- still digesting details and waiting for painkillers to come to my succor -- I'm going shopping for presents. My annual gift celebration will be tomorrow, and like any good irresponsible male, I've left the actual purchase of gifts to the last minute.

I can only say in my defense that I've given a fair amount of thought to what I'm going to buy. I think that counts for something. What and how much of it remains unclear.

But enough; I've got to do my duty as an American and consume consume consume!

This blog entry contains instructions on how to clean up your system if you have a little outbreak of a Microsoft Word macro virus called W97M.Thus.A. It's also rife with commentary. If you want to skip straight to the step-by-step instructions, click here. Otherwise, read on.

Welcome New Visitors
It seems this post has gotten a kind of second life of sorts. That's cool. I just want to reply to this commentary from my most prodigal new linker: "This ends the myth that switching to MACs will make computing life any easier." I take exception to "any easier." If you meant "completely without hassle or danger," then you'd be right. But I think there's a little hyperbole at work here. Anyway, I'm glad people are finding this information useful. On with the show!

One of the great things about Apple software is its general security. The operating system has always been developed by a tight team of engineers (compared to Microsoft's assembly-line methodology) and now with a firm basis in the UNIX-like BSD system -- Apple's flavor is called Darwin -- the core system code is not only extremely efficient and well-documented, but also highly secure because of the number of people constantly vetting it all over the world.

Also, because the user-base is small compared to Windows, there's not as much incentive to create spyware/malware or viruses. However, the flip side of that is that most Mac users assume they don't need to worry about viruses, and if they do have a problem, not as much is known about how to fix it.

Case in point: sometime over the past year, I picked up the W97M.Thus.A, a macro-virus which uses Microsoft Word's internal scripting language to self propagate. It is harmless on Macs, but it can spread to PCs where it will attempt to delete files every December 13th. Annoying, but I really didn't want to spend $100 on some software just to clean my MS Word files. I don't like MS Word and very rarely use it, so I started looking around for another solution. Here's what I found.

Detection:
Thanks to the aforementioned BSD-base, Mac users and developers can make effective use of the wide world of open source libraries and tools. There's a collaboratively maintained and updated database of virus definitions and engine for checking files called ClamAV. Pretty cool.

Cooler still, British systems analyist Mark Allen has packaged for MacOSX as clamXav. Google eventually brought me that piece of code, which in turn informed me as to the name of the virus I was having problems with.

A little experimentation confirmed that some of the proposal files I was working with were infected with W97M.Thus.A. Since the folks I send these to are often PC users, there's a risk that the virus could negatively impact their system. I'm also asking them to employ me based in part at least on my technological acumen, so sending a virus with my proposal is embarrassing, perhaps livelihood-imperiling.

However, ClamAV/clamXav are virus detection programs. They don't deal with removing the bad stuff. I knew what I had, but not how to get rid of it without dropping ducats on MacAffee or Symantec.

Removal
I figured out that brand new Word files were infected, so I ran clamXav on the application itself, wanting to see if the virus code was somehow inside Word, or maybe living elsewhere. Turns out the only place it appears is in the "Normal" template, which is what all new documents start out as. I deleted the template and relaunched Word, and lo and behold I could create new clean documents. However, as soon as I opened any old infected document, my Normal template was hosed immediately.

Then I discovered through a little more googling that part of the action of the virus is to disable "macro virus protection" within Word. This is a feature that has Word warn you when a macro-embedded document is being opened, and allows you to disable macros while working on it if this is unexpected or suspicious. I was able to turn it back on simply by selecting Preferences from the Word menu and hitting the Enable Macro Virus Protection checkbox.

Now when I open infected files, I can disable macros and prevent my "Normal" template from picking up the bug. All that's left is to clean up the files I'm working on, which becomes as simple as opening them, taking the option to disable macros, selecting all, copying, opening a new document, pasting and saving.

Instructions
So, to bring it all back home, here's what to do if you get people telling you your Word files are infected:

1. Get a copy of clamXav, and run it on your documents. See what's infected. Maybe move them all into one quarantine folder for the sake of keeping order.
2. Find your "Normal" template. It's in the Microsoft Office X folder, in the templates sub-folder. Trash it. Word will auto-generate a new one.
3. Go into your Preferences (in the Word menu) and hit the Enable Macro Virus Protection checkbox.
4. Go through your infected files. When you open them, accept the option to disable macros. Select all, copy, create a new document, paste and then save the new document wherever you want to start storing clean files.

If you ever get another MS Word document which brings up the bit about macros, odds are you've found or received another infected file. Virtually no one uses Word's macro tools these days. Do not enable macros unless you are expecting a macro-dependent file! This is as basic a precaution as not downloading strange and unexpected email attachments.

Zoomin' up to 50,000 feet but still on the topic of "problems in the world," I revisit one of my regular reads which I'm trying to popularize: John Robb's "Global Guerillas". He's got the best take I've seen on the news that John Negroponte -- our man in Iraq -- is considering pulling from his School of the Americas Playbook and revving up the old paramilitary death-squad system.

The problems with this decentralization strategy are legion. A major one is that the target minority (religion and ethnicity) isn't an isolated powerless subset, rather it is part of a larger majority in the Middle East and an ascendent revisionist movement. The second major problem is that the US will puncture any remaining claim to moral superiority (see the brief on Boyd for more).

I appreciate the kind of analysis Robb provides on the news of the day. It embraces and explores the moral dimensions of our current wars, but doesn't get carried away. Seems like analysis I can use. For contrast, the Kossack commentary is a somewhat less helpful "How evil do you have to be to even consider this option?" I can appreciate the sentiment, but I believe I'm past the usefulness of a sympathy circle.

Anway, following my Sunday whimsy, I clicked the Boyd link and then trackback, and ended up on another good bit of writing from during the election cycle, but still prescient: Are We All Fundamentalists Now? by Jason Lefkowitz --

Strategist John Boyd defined an approach to war in which you attempt to isolate your opponent along three axes: the physical, the mental, and the moral. We are currently suffering from a Boydian moral isolation, brought on in large part because the world doesn't believe that our fight in Iraq is a fight of fundamentalism against rationalism. Instead, they see it almost as two different fundamentalist sects taking each other on -- which leaves rational third parties with no place to put their allegiance, except in their own self-interest.

Never looked at it this way in terms of allied reactions, but it makes a certain kind of sense. It also gives a good pseudopsychological rationale for some people's virtolic reaction to the ambivalence of our traditional allies in this conflict. Very little pisses people off more than telling them you think their god is bullshit.

This also sparks some thoughts on the nature of political fundimentalism vis-a-vis the commentary on the Kos thread, but that's a whole other blog entry, and one I'd have to think through somewhat further.

The point is that the ability to loose perspective by assuming the mantle of moral superiority is universal. It's a colliary no doubt to the corrupting nature of power. Those who place themselves within the sphere of moral conflict without the ability to question their own perspective -- checks and balances, if you will -- are at a serious long-run strategic disadvantage. The absolute power represented by moral certainty will take you places fast, but it'll catch up with you. Jessie Taylor of Pandagon brings it all back home, with his commentary on torture apoligists:

The torture brigade isn't really concerned about winning the war. They're playing a videogame in which they don't realize that they may never run out of bullets, but as long as they keep doing what they're doing, they're never going to run out of enemies. The strategy, however, will never change, as they can point to their score and the corpses on the ground and declare that victory is almost around the corner.

Sooner or later though, the dollar cost and body count will get high enough that we'll disengage. At some point you get tired of trying to "beat the game," (which would mean what? genocide?) and quit shoveling quarters in. In the meantime, you haven't done your homework, and you're broke, out of shape, and have no friends. Payback's a bitch.

I had some hopes that after these proposed end-of-month elections, Bush might take the advantage and bail. It's looking less likely judging by the political winds, which is really too bad. Without a major change in focus soon, we're going to reap the whirlwind of our declining social capital and our junk-bonded diplomatic/moral status. It would appear that Bush is back to writing his legacy. Stupid, Broke, Fat and Alone: The 21st Century Decline Of The United States.

I'm back in hometown Eugene; the Willamette valley gives me peace. Waking up earily after a late fun night in SF, coffee, BART (where a really friendly mildly retarded woman and husband and I had something aproxomating a conversation), iPod, short United flight, PDX Light Rail (more and more hip-hop heads in Portland; interesting cultural shift), Amtrak (ticket counter guy still referencing 9/11 to old ladies at the counter; wtf?)... finally the observation car. There's a kind of green here that's unique. You forget about it when you're away, but then you remember. It goes well with the clean smell of the air, and the comforts of home wash over you.

But, unfortunately, there's also a flipside. I get mail from the IRS at my mother's house, and apparently I owe them a fair chunk of change. I may have been 21, just out of college, scraping by, and then -- here's my own sucker bit to leech off tragegy -- thrown into near-destitution by 9/11's impact on the NY economy, but they want what I owe them from 2001, plus penalties and interest. Which I suppose is fair, and to be expected really.

So I'll need to start looking around for more income, and going back on my austerity budget. That's ok. I needed focus anyway, and better to be spurred to action by taxes as than by death. Thanks Uncle Sam?

So this summer road trip thing is getting more and more real. I just bought two domains for it:

diyusa.org: I'm thinking the .org part of the trip is propaganda, people, the Big Ideas and stuff.

vagabender.com: The .com seems like maybe the place to promote outcomes, like the film we intend to make.

Woo!

I referenced this in the lengthy piece below, but for those who don't click "read more" and/or didn't click through in the array of links I laid down, here's something I remembered in all my nostalgia. This was made four years ago:

What I decided to attempt instead was to create a sort of combination "state-of-the-union" and "active-citizenship primer" for the emerging virtual nation. I say emerging, because as hot-shit as all the wall street boys think the internet is now, just wait another five or six years. If things go the way of cheap universal open access and not the way of monopolistic proprietary gold digging, the denizens of the net will be more numerous, more capable and more powerful by several orders of magnitude.

That's from the "about" page of Denizens, something I created instead of a final paper in one of my last classes at NYU. Re-reading it makes me wish I'd kept more of my academic work from that period, purile as much of it might have been.

I referenced this in the lengthy piece below, but for those who don't click "read more" and/or didn't click through in the array of links I laid down, here's something I remembered in all my nostalgia. This was made four years ago:

What I decided to attempt instead was to create a sort of combination "state-of-the-union" and "active-citizenship primer" for the emerging virtual nation. I say emerging, because as hot-shit as all the wall street boys think the internet is now, just wait another five or six years. If things go the way of cheap universal open access and not the way of monopolistic proprietary gold digging, the denizens of the net will be more numerous, more capable and more powerful by several orders of magnitude.

That's from the "about" page of Denizens, something I created instead of a final paper in one of my last classes at NYU. Re-reading it makes me wish I'd kept more of my academic work from that period, purile as much of it might have been.

This is another big old ramblin' post in the grand style of yore -- mashing up my own personal experience with art and etherial stuff I think, sparked by the news of the day. It just came out this way, man. I swear.

The Beeb says 32 Million Americans read blogs and research I saw presented a year ago shows that (at least in politix) online consumers are influentials. Interesting.

So does this mean I'll soon be able to sell out for big bucks? Will I and my cohort create the next online sensation to sell ad space on, or will Madison Avenue continue slowly catching up in it's ability to create faux internet projects which are really exercises in product placement?

Also, when will a viral bit of language blow "blog" out of the water? Do you want anyone with that much of a beard drafting your lexicon? What? Well, ok, so the recent merger of Six Apart -- the family biz of the Trotts until Joi Ito and his crazy Japanese VC skills got involved -- and LiveJournal, and especially this commentary by Danah Boyd, got me thinking about terminology vs technology. You can take the same fucking piece of functionalty, the same code even, and just give it a different stylesheet/brand/name and people will think about it differently, expect different things, use it differently. That's really something; what would Burroughs make of all this crazy shit, I wonder...

(2,000 words or so total; personal bits at the end)

I think the term "blog" has become rather strongly associated with professional pursuits, ambitious talkers and amateur punditry, in large part thanks to the 2003/2004 political cycle. The really addictive uses of these tools, though, are in creating communities of interest and inquiry. The publishing aspect is empowering, but my guess is at best that 1 in 100 people have the will to "publish" at any given moment, let alone consistantly enough to really create a "blog" or "ham sandwitch" or whatever it's gonna be called in 10 years. But the maxim applies: publish or perish. If you put yourself out in that melieu and your site doesn't have fresh and interesting content, your readership declines and you end up cold, lonely, howlin' at the moon. Or maybe you just eat some more skittles and call it a day. Whatever.

Anyway, it's a Real Thing to take up the responsibility of "publishing," but almost everyone will gossip, kvetch, banter, chit chat; and they like to do it a lot. Every day even. I sometimes find this annoying -- noticing that my friends have the same conversations over and over again for instance -- but there seems to be an impulse within human nature to do that sort of thing. It's backed up by science, it seems. Robin Dunbar (of the magic 150 idea) says this:

The group size predicted for modern humans by equation (1) would require as much as 42% of the total time budget to be devoted to social grooming.

...
My suggestion, then, is that language evolved as a "cheap" form of social grooming, so enabling the ancestral humans to maintain the cohesion of the unusually large groups demanded by the particular conditions they faced at the time.

I found that quote pulled out on another VC's inquiry into the solidness of the 150 number; his point being that 150 seems more like a maximum, not a norm. But the notion of language serving the same function within regards to social cohesion as social grooming (picking yr neighbors bugs, a core monkey value) explains the repetitive nature of many group conversations, and the uniformity also of small talk. This brings me back back to a little book on communication I found in my High School Library when I was developing anti-violence curriculum with Luke (and our AP psych class). It introduced me to the five levels of communication, which I made art about much later on, after college.

So then it's interesting to me to read Danah's bit about LiveJournal culture. Particularly this:

LJ folks don't see LJ as a tool, but a community. Bloggers may see the ethereal blogosphere as their community, but for LJers, it's all about LJ. Aside from the ubergeek LJers, LJers don't read non-LJs even though syndication is available. They post for their friends, comment excessively and constantly moderate who should have access to what.

LJ has a lot more social grooming going on than the "blogosphere," and I think that's a great thing. We could learn a lot from that. They seem to drive down further in the five levels, closer to truth. It's scary, yeah; communities of cutters, for instance. But that's the breaks. Humanity is weird and messy.

Weird and messy don't often combine well with professionality. That might be why you don't see much stuff in the "blogosphere" about feelings, about truth. It's too bad. I think that's what Uncle Weinberger and the rest of the cluetrainers all hope will happen; and I do too, because I think it will lead to Better Things. I was writing in my paper journal the other day about my blog (pomo to the max!) about how what makes blogs valuable is that they're essentially true. That's the "human voice" bit. Marketing and PR are lies in their hearts; blogs are people, and that's different. It's what differentiates them most, and it's really intriguing how the interplay between this value and the realities of politics took shape. It was a real nutbuster for me and many others this past year or two... whether we realized it at the time or not.

I mean, if your objective is to bring truth to light, to what extent can you compromise the truth in the pursuit of this objective? It's not an academic question, because in praxis it's going to happen.

This is all stuff I'm going to keep chewing on for ages and ages; but to bring it all back home, having re-read my out-of-date monkey page, pondered some old art of mine, and feeling two cups of coffee skimming around my nervous system making me bold and fast on the keys, here a story I'd label "confession" both for its titillating elements and the fact that I haven't told many people about it before.

Theres a bit from the art piece I referenced above:

But you know what the real bitch of truth is, in real life? It's that in interpersonal terms, the truth is often very unsatifying, because the truthful answer to many questions is "I don't know."

What do you want? What do you want to be? Where do you want to go?

We're faced with these questions all the time, and you look bad if you always answer "I don't know." It's like, "next time on 20 questions, a complete ass!" "I don't know", "I don't know", "Uhhh... shit, I should know that but...","I just don't know."

As with a lot of my performance writing, I pull things from conversations I have, overhear, etc. This bit came from a conversation I had with this woman Jill who I met because she was stage-managing another piece of work I had done. She was six feet tall and beautiful and I have a pattern of being attracted to stage managers (obvious power-play turnons, and for some reason I've had more hot girls in that role than you'd expect), and so I wooed her a little there in New York at the end of 2001.

We went out and saw a Norman Rockwell show at the Gugenheim. We went for walks along the Hudson and sat on the cold ground talking about life. The day before I was to fly back to Oregon for christmas, she called and wanted to hang out. I had gotten a little stoned previously and I wasn't sure if it was a good idea, but my then-roommate Christina told me I should, so I did, taking the bike ride over the bridge in the December air to clear my head a bit.

We met up and had coffee at this 24-hour french joint on Park Avenue, and she invited me back to see her place (a nice big spot; she came from well-heeled family) and one thing led to another. I remember that when I first kissed her John Lennon's "Imagine" started playing, and it seemed really appropriate. It was natural. It was good. She'd never had orgasms from oral sex before. But I couldn't sleep over or stay for another round even, because it was 1 or 2 in the morning and my flight was at 7 and I had to get my things and so on. It's never a good thing to leave at a moment like that, end the intimacy, but that's what I did.

I also started to feel a little weird because I knew my friend Sam had been pursuing her, and in all honesty I hadn't expected this to happen. Further, I'd just gotten done screwing up good relationships with two other quality women and recall feeling at the time like I aught not to keep blundering around, take a more monastic view of things. And so I kind of didn't follow up. I didn't really strike up an email dialogue. We didn't make small talk. No social grooming. No more conversations on the west side. No more rendezvous at french places, and certainly no more bedroom fun. I rationalized it in a couple ways, but it's something which I regret, obviously.

The point was, all this happened at the same time that I launched this blog, but I didn't mention it. I mentioned breaking up with Yuliya. I link back to my earliest collected thoughts about truth and identity online, but I said nothing about Jill.

This isn't self-referential narcissism -- or not entirely. It's an effort to recall the difference between what I said and what I did, to remember what I thought and the context in which those thoughts came forth. It's reaffirming to me to recall how my belief in "the truth always feels better" was born, and I take a kind of solace in how difficult a belief it is to enact in your daily life. Good living isn't easy. The truth sets us free from secrets and silence (the seeds of madness), but it can also make us vulerable. That takes strength, and in all truth strength comes not just from within, but from your social network.

To bring it all back home -- for real this time, no more tangents -- I hope we humans can work it all out. We're going to keep experiencing change, and I still believe we could be getting into something really good. Social revolution, information reformation, cultral cachetism, who knows. For really good things to happen, people are going to have to dive deep for the truth, and work on their social grooming at the same time. That means more than diplomacy and small talk: it means finding ways to be comfortable with one another, to be open and true, and finding the will to keep it up when the going gets muddled.

It's a tall order, but I think humanity just might be up to it. My role seems for now to be in making the tools, finding the names, and writing some of the words. Building and selling the dream. Yours may be too, or it may be completely different. Any which way, the process is a pleasure.

This is another big old ramblin' post in the grand style of yore -- mashing up my own personal experience with art and etherial stuff I think, sparked by the news of the day. It just came out this way, man. I swear.

The Beeb says 32 Million Americans read blogs and research I saw presented a year ago shows that (at least in politix) online consumers are influentials. Interesting.

So does this mean I'll soon be able to sell out for big bucks? Will I and my cohort create the next online sensation to sell ad space on, or will Madison Avenue continue slowly catching up in it's ability to create faux internet projects which are really exercises in product placement?

Also, when will a viral bit of language blow "blog" out of the water? Do you want anyone with that much of a beard drafting your lexicon? What? Well, ok, so the recent merger of Six Apart -- the family biz of the Trotts until Joi Ito and his crazy Japanese VC skills got involved -- and LiveJournal, and especially this commentary by Danah Boyd, got me thinking about terminology vs technology. You can take the same fucking piece of functionalty, the same code even, and just give it a different stylesheet/brand/name and people will think about it differently, expect different things, use it differently. That's really something; what would Burroughs make of all this crazy shit, I wonder...

(2,000 words or so total; personal bits at the end)

I think the term "blog" has become rather strongly associated with professional pursuits, ambitious talkers and amateur punditry, in large part thanks to the 2003/2004 political cycle. The really addictive uses of these tools, though, are in creating communities of interest and inquiry. The publishing aspect is empowering, but my guess is at best that 1 in 100 people have the will to "publish" at any given moment, let alone consistantly enough to really create a "blog" or "ham sandwitch" or whatever it's gonna be called in 10 years. But the maxim applies: publish or perish. If you put yourself out in that melieu and your site doesn't have fresh and interesting content, your readership declines and you end up cold, lonely, howlin' at the moon. Or maybe you just eat some more skittles and call it a day. Whatever.

Anyway, it's a Real Thing to take up the responsibility of "publishing," but almost everyone will gossip, kvetch, banter, chit chat; and they like to do it a lot. Every day even. I sometimes find this annoying -- noticing that my friends have the same conversations over and over again for instance -- but there seems to be an impulse within human nature to do that sort of thing. It's backed up by science, it seems. Robin Dunbar (of the magic 150 idea) says this:

The group size predicted for modern humans by equation (1) would require as much as 42% of the total time budget to be devoted to social grooming.

...
My suggestion, then, is that language evolved as a "cheap" form of social grooming, so enabling the ancestral humans to maintain the cohesion of the unusually large groups demanded by the particular conditions they faced at the time.

I found that quote pulled out on another VC's inquiry into the solidness of the 150 number; his point being that 150 seems more like a maximum, not a norm. But the notion of language serving the same function within regards to social cohesion as social grooming (picking yr neighbors bugs, a core monkey value) explains the repetitive nature of many group conversations, and the uniformity also of small talk. This brings me back back to a little book on communication I found in my High School Library when I was developing anti-violence curriculum with Luke (and our AP psych class). It introduced me to the five levels of communication, which I made art about much later on, after college.

So then it's interesting to me to read Danah's bit about LiveJournal culture. Particularly this:

LJ folks don't see LJ as a tool, but a community. Bloggers may see the ethereal blogosphere as their community, but for LJers, it's all about LJ. Aside from the ubergeek LJers, LJers don't read non-LJs even though syndication is available. They post for their friends, comment excessively and constantly moderate who should have access to what.

LJ has a lot more social grooming going on than the "blogosphere," and I think that's a great thing. We could learn a lot from that. They seem to drive down further in the five levels, closer to truth. It's scary, yeah; communities of cutters, for instance. But that's the breaks. Humanity is weird and messy.

Weird and messy don't often combine well with professionality. That might be why you don't see much stuff in the "blogosphere" about feelings, about truth. It's too bad. I think that's what Uncle Weinberger and the rest of the cluetrainers all hope will happen; and I do too, because I think it will lead to Better Things. I was writing in my paper journal the other day about my blog (pomo to the max!) about how what makes blogs valuable is that they're essentially true. That's the "human voice" bit. Marketing and PR are lies in their hearts; blogs are people, and that's different. It's what differentiates them most, and it's really intriguing how the interplay between this value and the realities of politics took shape. It was a real nutbuster for me and many others this past year or two... whether we realized it at the time or not.

I mean, if your objective is to bring truth to light, to what extent can you compromise the truth in the pursuit of this objective? It's not an academic question, because in praxis it's going to happen.

This is all stuff I'm going to keep chewing on for ages and ages; but to bring it all back home, having re-read my out-of-date monkey page, pondered some old art of mine, and feeling two cups of coffee skimming around my nervous system making me bold and fast on the keys, here a story I'd label "confession" both for its titillating elements and the fact that I haven't told many people about it before.

Theres a bit from the art piece I referenced above:

But you know what the real bitch of truth is, in real life? It's that in interpersonal terms, the truth is often very unsatifying, because the truthful answer to many questions is "I don't know."

What do you want? What do you want to be? Where do you want to go?

We're faced with these questions all the time, and you look bad if you always answer "I don't know." It's like, "next time on 20 questions, a complete ass!" "I don't know", "I don't know", "Uhhh... shit, I should know that but...","I just don't know."

As with a lot of my performance writing, I pull things from conversations I have, overhear, etc. This bit came from a conversation I had with this woman Jill who I met because she was stage-managing another piece of work I had done. She was six feet tall and beautiful and I have a pattern of being attracted to stage managers (obvious power-play turnons, and for some reason I've had more hot girls in that role than you'd expect), and so I wooed her a little there in New York at the end of 2001.

We went out and saw a Norman Rockwell show at the Gugenheim. We went for walks along the Hudson and sat on the cold ground talking about life. The day before I was to fly back to Oregon for christmas, she called and wanted to hang out. I had gotten a little stoned previously and I wasn't sure if it was a good idea, but my then-roommate Christina told me I should, so I did, taking the bike ride over the bridge in the December air to clear my head a bit.

We met up and had coffee at this 24-hour french joint on Park Avenue, and she invited me back to see her place (a nice big spot; she came from well-heeled family) and one thing led to another. I remember that when I first kissed her John Lennon's "Imagine" started playing, and it seemed really appropriate. It was natural. It was good. She'd never had orgasms from oral sex before. But I couldn't sleep over or stay for another round even, because it was 1 or 2 in the morning and my flight was at 7 and I had to get my things and so on. It's never a good thing to leave at a moment like that, end the intimacy, but that's what I did.

I also started to feel a little weird because I knew my friend Sam had been pursuing her, and in all honesty I hadn't expected this to happen. Further, I'd just gotten done screwing up good relationships with two other quality women and recall feeling at the time like I aught not to keep blundering around, take a more monastic view of things. And so I kind of didn't follow up. I didn't really strike up an email dialogue. We didn't make small talk. No social grooming. No more conversations on the west side. No more rendezvous at french places, and certainly no more bedroom fun. I rationalized it in a couple ways, but it's something which I regret, obviously.

The point was, all this happened at the same time that I launched this blog, but I didn't mention it. I mentioned breaking up with Yuliya. I link back to my earliest collected thoughts about truth and identity online, but I said nothing about Jill.

This isn't self-referential narcissism -- or not entirely. It's an effort to recall the difference between what I said and what I did, to remember what I thought and the context in which those thoughts came forth. It's reaffirming to me to recall how my belief in "the truth always feels better" was born, and I take a kind of solace in how difficult a belief it is to enact in your daily life. Good living isn't easy. The truth sets us free from secrets and silence (the seeds of madness), but it can also make us vulerable. That takes strength, and in all truth strength comes not just from within, but from your social network.

To bring it all back home -- for real this time, no more tangents -- I hope we humans can work it all out. We're going to keep experiencing change, and I still believe we could be getting into something really good. Social revolution, information reformation, cultral cachetism, who knows. For really good things to happen, people are going to have to dive deep for the truth, and work on their social grooming at the same time. That means more than diplomacy and small talk: it means finding ways to be comfortable with one another, to be open and true, and finding the will to keep it up when the going gets muddled.

It's a tall order, but I think humanity just might be up to it. My role seems for now to be in making the tools, finding the names, and writing some of the words. Building and selling the dream. Yours may be too, or it may be completely different. Any which way, the process is a pleasure.

This is another big old ramblin' post in the grand style of yore -- mashing up my own personal experience with art and etherial stuff I think, sparked by the news of the day. It just came out this way, man. I swear.

The Beeb says 32 Million Americans read blogs and research I saw presented a year ago shows that (at least in politix) online consumers are influentials. Interesting.

So does this mean I'll soon be able to sell out for big bucks? Will I and my cohort create the next online sensation to sell ad space on, or will Madison Avenue continue slowly catching up in it's ability to create faux internet projects which are really exercises in product placement?

Also, when will a viral bit of language blow "blog" out of the water? Do you want anyone with that much of a beard drafting your lexicon? What? Well, ok, so the recent merger of Six Apart -- the family biz of the Trotts until Joi Ito and his crazy Japanese VC skills got involved -- and LiveJournal, and especially this commentary by Danah Boyd, got me thinking about terminology vs technology. You can take the same fucking piece of functionalty, the same code even, and just give it a different stylesheet/brand/name and people will think about it differently, expect different things, use it differently. That's really something; what would Burroughs make of all this crazy shit, I wonder...

(2,000 words or so total; personal bits at the end)

I think the term "blog" has become rather strongly associated with professional pursuits, ambitious talkers and amateur punditry, in large part thanks to the 2003/2004 political cycle. The really addictive uses of these tools, though, are in creating communities of interest and inquiry. The publishing aspect is empowering, but my guess is at best that 1 in 100 people have the will to "publish" at any given moment, let alone consistantly enough to really create a "blog" or "ham sandwitch" or whatever it's gonna be called in 10 years. But the maxim applies: publish or perish. If you put yourself out in that melieu and your site doesn't have fresh and interesting content, your readership declines and you end up cold, lonely, howlin' at the moon. Or maybe you just eat some more skittles and call it a day. Whatever.

Anyway, it's a Real Thing to take up the responsibility of "publishing," but almost everyone will gossip, kvetch, banter, chit chat; and they like to do it a lot. Every day even. I sometimes find this annoying -- noticing that my friends have the same conversations over and over again for instance -- but there seems to be an impulse within human nature to do that sort of thing. It's backed up by science, it seems. Robin Dunbar (of the magic 150 idea) says this:

The group size predicted for modern humans by equation (1) would require as much as 42% of the total time budget to be devoted to social grooming.

...
My suggestion, then, is that language evolved as a "cheap" form of social grooming, so enabling the ancestral humans to maintain the cohesion of the unusually large groups demanded by the particular conditions they faced at the time.

I found that quote pulled out on another VC's inquiry into the solidness of the 150 number; his point being that 150 seems more like a maximum, not a norm. But the notion of language serving the same function within regards to social cohesion as social grooming (picking yr neighbors bugs, a core monkey value) explains the repetitive nature of many group conversations, and the uniformity also of small talk. This brings me back back to a little book on communication I found in my High School Library when I was developing anti-violence curriculum with Luke (and our AP psych class). It introduced me to the five levels of communication, which I made art about much later on, after college.

So then it's interesting to me to read Danah's bit about LiveJournal culture. Particularly this:

LJ folks don't see LJ as a tool, but a community. Bloggers may see the ethereal blogosphere as their community, but for LJers, it's all about LJ. Aside from the ubergeek LJers, LJers don't read non-LJs even though syndication is available. They post for their friends, comment excessively and constantly moderate who should have access to what.

LJ has a lot more social grooming going on than the "blogosphere," and I think that's a great thing. We could learn a lot from that. They seem to drive down further in the five levels, closer to truth. It's scary, yeah; communities of cutters, for instance. But that's the breaks. Humanity is weird and messy.

Weird and messy don't often combine well with professionality. That might be why you don't see much stuff in the "blogosphere" about feelings, about truth. It's too bad. I think that's what Uncle Weinberger and the rest of the cluetrainers all hope will happen; and I do too, because I think it will lead to Better Things. I was writing in my paper journal the other day about my blog (pomo to the max!) about how what makes blogs valuable is that they're essentially true. That's the "human voice" bit. Marketing and PR are lies in their hearts; blogs are people, and that's different. It's what differentiates them most, and it's really intriguing how the interplay between this value and the realities of politics took shape. It was a real nutbuster for me and many others this past year or two... whether we realized it at the time or not.

I mean, if your objective is to bring truth to light, to what extent can you compromise the truth in the pursuit of this objective? It's not an academic question, because in praxis it's going to happen.

This is all stuff I'm going to keep chewing on for ages and ages; but to bring it all back home, having re-read my out-of-date monkey page, pondered some old art of mine, and feeling two cups of coffee skimming around my nervous system making me bold and fast on the keys, here a story I'd label "confession" both for its titillating elements and the fact that I haven't told many people about it before.

Theres a bit from the art piece I referenced above:

But you know what the real bitch of truth is, in real life? It's that in interpersonal terms, the truth is often very unsatifying, because the truthful answer to many questions is "I don't know."

What do you want? What do you want to be? Where do you want to go?

We're faced with these questions all the time, and you look bad if you always answer "I don't know." It's like, "next time on 20 questions, a complete ass!" "I don't know", "I don't know", "Uhhh... shit, I should know that but...","I just don't know."

As with a lot of my performance writing, I pull things from conversations I have, overhear, etc. This bit came from a conversation I had with this woman Jill who I met because she was stage-managing another piece of work I had done. She was six feet tall and beautiful and I have a pattern of being attracted to stage managers (obvious power-play turnons, and for some reason I've had more hot girls in that role than you'd expect), and so I wooed her a little there in New York at the end of 2001.

We went out and saw a Norman Rockwell show at the Gugenheim. We went for walks along the Hudson and sat on the cold ground talking about life. The day before I was to fly back to Oregon for christmas, she called and wanted to hang out. I had gotten a little stoned previously and I wasn't sure if it was a good idea, but my then-roommate Christina told me I should, so I did, taking the bike ride over the bridge in the December air to clear my head a bit.

We met up and had coffee at this 24-hour french joint on Park Avenue, and she invited me back to see her place (a nice big spot; she came from well-heeled family) and one thing led to another. I remember that when I first kissed her John Lennon's "Imagine" started playing, and it seemed really appropriate. It was natural. It was good. She'd never had orgasms from oral sex before. But I couldn't sleep over or stay for another round even, because it was 1 or 2 in the morning and my flight was at 7 and I had to get my things and so on. It's never a good thing to leave at a moment like that, end the intimacy, but that's what I did.

I also started to feel a little weird because I knew my friend Sam had been pursuing her, and in all honesty I hadn't expected this to happen. Further, I'd just gotten done screwing up good relationships with two other quality women and recall feeling at the time like I aught not to keep blundering around, take a more monastic view of things. And so I kind of didn't follow up. I didn't really strike up an email dialogue. We didn't make small talk. No social grooming. No more conversations on the west side. No more rendezvous at french places, and certainly no more bedroom fun. I rationalized it in a couple ways, but it's something which I regret, obviously.

The point was, all this happened at the same time that I launched this blog, but I didn't mention it. I mentioned breaking up with Yuliya. I link back to my earliest collected thoughts about truth and identity online, but I said nothing about Jill.

This isn't self-referential narcissism -- or not entirely. It's an effort to recall the difference between what I said and what I did, to remember what I thought and the context in which those thoughts came forth. It's reaffirming to me to recall how my belief in "the truth always feels better" was born, and I take a kind of solace in how difficult a belief it is to enact in your daily life. Good living isn't easy. The truth sets us free from secrets and silence (the seeds of madness), but it can also make us vulerable. That takes strength, and in all truth strength comes not just from within, but from your social network.

To bring it all back home -- for real this time, no more tangents -- I hope we humans can work it all out. We're going to keep experiencing change, and I still believe we could be getting into something really good. Social revolution, information reformation, cultral cachetism, who knows. For really good things to happen, people are going to have to dive deep for the truth, and work on their social grooming at the same time. That means more than diplomacy and small talk: it means finding ways to be comfortable with one another, to be open and true, and finding the will to keep it up when the going gets muddled.

It's a tall order, but I think humanity just might be up to it. My role seems for now to be in making the tools, finding the names, and writing some of the words. Building and selling the dream. Yours may be too, or it may be completely different. Any which way, the process is a pleasure.