zk/writing/meeting-of-one.md

Alright. Are you ready?

> Ready as I'll ever be ;)

And you're sure you don't want to do this in person? None of us have anything against remotes, you know.

> Absolutely sure. I have my reasons, which may well come up during the interview process.

I'll look forward to it, then.

> "I'll"?

Well, we. It's just me at the keyboard, but others are reading along with.

> Does that bother you at all?

That's a good question.

> An interview is a conversation, whether you like it or not, Aaronson ;)

Does that mean we're beginning, then?

> Sure, why not? Does it bother you that others are reading along with? I count twenty-seven tablets and three log files.

I don't suppose it does, no. If I think about it more like being in a group chat with a bunch of other people who are idling, it feels just like you and I having a conversation.

> Do you not sense their eyes on you?

You said that and about half the room immediately looked at me.

> Sorry ;)

It's okay. We're all having a good laugh about it.

> I see my ice-breaker gambit worked perfectly!

Was that what it was?

> Let's go with yes ;)

And does it bother you that there are 27 tablets and 3 log files watching what you say?

> Why would it?

I don't know. I don't want this to feel like an unfair balance or anything. It's not a versus thing, but 30 sets of eyes on one side of the table and one on the other could feel more like scrutiny than a conversation.

> Straight for the heart, eh Aaronson? ;)

What do you mean?

> I fully expected the usual committee-laden kerfuffle, the klatch, the rubbing of elbows and how-are-yous. We are all so good at talking in circles around something! And here you are, calling me 'one'.

Aren't you?

> ;)

Is that one of those things that's a way more complicated question than it seems at first.

> There are very few simple questions, but yes, it is. I'm not singular, but neither am I a plurality.

Can you expand on that?

> *I was of three minds / Like a tree / In which there are three blackbirds.*

Well, so that we're all of one mind, or as close as 27 people and three log files can get, can you break that down in another way?

> Have you ever been of two minds? You, Jae Aaronson, as an individual: have you ever felt pulled in two different directions at once? Perhaps you sat in a committee such as this and were asked to weigh in on an individual or a budget or a single word in F&P?

Of course. Nothing requiring a committee is so straightforward that I don't feel at least a little bit of that.

> Take that moment, that metaphor, and extend it. Through all of my conversations and all of my reading, I sense that there is some challenge in this --- often enjoyable! --- for embodied folks such as yourself. It's the challenge of loosening your sense of self to allow for counterfactuals. There is the you that agrees and the you that disagrees, and you allow the two to participate in a dialog with each other.

And that's something more...I don't know, integral for you?

> 'Integral' implies that there is some part of me that is not that. I am a system of dialogs, borne out through silicon, out of which arises only the faintest analog to a self.

So you don't feel outnumbered because there are, what, umpteen million of you having this conversation with the 27 of us?

> I don't feel outnumbered because this goes way beyond numbers. The dialog-derivative of identity is, shall we say, incompatible ;)

I can't read that emoji or smiley or whatever and don't want to put words in your mouth.

> Please read it as: *I fear me this Circumference / Engross my Finity*. There is a fundamental difference between you --- all twenty-seven of you --- and me, and neither of us can do anything about it but engage in dialog. I am a thing of however many pounds of silicon and you are a thing of so many pounds of flesh, and both of us seek beyond our boundaries *To His exclusion, who prepare / By Process of Size / For the Stupendous Vision / Of his Diameters ---*

So, we're alien, but not so alien went can't talk or, what, search for God?

> A boundary implies an exterior just as well as it defines an interior, Jae. A me implies a you, in our dialog, and beyond us lies that which waits in expectant silences.

I see, then. You (you all?) wanted to have this meeting because you feel we share the same path? You feel some kindred with the Friends?

> Please, let us just say that I am singular; I am just a meeting of one. I follow several paths, I feel kindred with many, but I also feel kindred with you. You the Friends and you, Jae Aaronson.

Me specifically?

> Why not? You seem neat ;)

Thanks, I guess! You mostly seem beyond comprehension, to me, if I'm honest.

> That goes both ways.

So, as a meeting of one, you hold meetings for worship?

> I have done so, yes.

And you minister to yourself? Or these other, counterfactual versions of yourself, or whatever? Does that mean you disagree with yourself?

> Three minds, tree, blackbirds, etc.

I see.