<p>And you’re sure you don’t want to do this in person? None of us have anything against remotes, you know.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Absolutely sure. I have my reasons, which may well come up during the interview process.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I’ll look forward to it, then.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I’ll”?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, we. It’s just me at the keyboard, but others are reading along with.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does that bother you at all?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a good question.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An interview is a conversation, whether you like it or not, Aaronson ;)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Does that mean we’re beginning, then?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sure, why not? Does it bother you that others are reading along with? I count twenty-seven tablets and three log files.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Do you not sense their eyes on you?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You said that and about half the room immediately looked at me.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sorry ;)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s okay. We’re all having a good laugh about it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I see my ice-breaker gambit worked perfectly!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Was that what it was?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let’s go with yes ;)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And does it bother you that there are 27 tablets and 3 log files watching what you say?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why would it?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Straight for the heart, eh Aaronson? ;)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What do you mean?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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’.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Aren’t you?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>;)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is that one of those things that’s a way more complicated question than it seems at first.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are very few simple questions, but yes, it is. I’m not singular, but neither am I a plurality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can you expand on that?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>I was of three minds / Like a tree / In which there are three blackbirds.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>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?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course. Nothing requiring a committee is so straightforward that I don’t feel at least a little bit of that.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And that’s something more…I don’t know, integral for you?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>‘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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So you don’t feel outnumbered because there are, what, umpteen million of you having this conversation with the 27 of us?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t feel outnumbered because this goes way beyond numbers. The dialog-derivative of identity is, shall we say, incompatible ;)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I can’t read that emoji or smiley or whatever and don’t want to put words in your mouth.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Please read it as: <em>I fear me this Circumference / Engross my Finity</em>. 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 <em>To His exclusion, who prepare / By Process of Size / For the Stupendous Vision / Of his Diameters —</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, we’re alien, but not so alien went can’t talk or, what, search for God?</p>
<p>A boundary implies an exterior just as well as it defines an interior, Jae. \wA me implies a you, in our dialog, and beyond us lies that which waits in expectant silences.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Me specifically?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why not? You seem neat ;)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks, I guess! You mostly seem beyond comprehension, to me, if I’m honest.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That goes both ways.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, as a meeting of one, you hold meetings for worship?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have done so, yes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And you minister to yourself? Or these other, counterfactual versions of yourself, or whatever? Does that mean you disagree with yourself?</p>
<p>Ioan Balan, despite all attempts to keep emself from sinking into the depths of whatever it was studying, always managed to find himself mired in details ey could not hope to escape. They twined and twisted around eir wrists, tripped em up about the ankles, and tugged em ever deeper into the fractal complications of whatever topic ey decided would be the subject of eir next work.</p>
<p>A recent paper ey had completed on an unnerving socialbreakdown in one of the old clades — those collection of individuals forked from a single uploaded consciousness — had garnered em no small amount of notoriety and plenty of credit on the reputation market.</p>
<p>It had also gained em a split of eir own. Dealing with the complex relations of a set of individuals created as clones from a single personality and sensorium had driven them deeper and deeper into the weeds of study. Ey had immersed emself in the problem so thoroughly that the Ioan that came out the other side of the research was no longer the Ioan that had gone in. The change was so great that the fork ey had sent to do the investigation had individuated, had undergone some process of speciation at some subtle level, leaving em unwilling to merge its experiences back with the Ioan prime. It had changed its name and left after sharing its memories, and moved out to live with a member of that ‘family’, such as it were.</p>
<p>Ey had still not made up eir mind on whether this was a positive or negative experience.</p>
<p>Since the paper had been published and reviewed — and reviewed and <em>re-reviewed</em>— ey had no shortage of requests for further anthropological work within the system. Ey had grown accustomed to sorting the requests into different bins. Ey had one for requests that were totally out of eir area of expertise (ancient methods of cryptography? In what wild universe would ey be considered any sort of expert on those?), another for serious but truly boring inquiries (yes, you run an algorithmic attempt at solving complex mathematical equations, but young Ioan had failed trigonometry three times over before giving up), and one for serious inquiries worth exploring.</p>
<p>This last was divided into roughly two piles, itself: the first was on topics of religion and the second was everything else. The first pile far and away outsized the second.</p>
<p>Today’s inquiry was that of “The Joseph Dyer Friends Meeting”.</p>
<p>The name alone was enough to grab Ioan’s attention. Was it a meeting of one person’s friends? What would they meet about? A fan-club, perhaps? Those still lingered, even in this post-self society.</p>
<p>The note clarified:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ioan Balan:</p>
<p>My name is Joseph Dyer and I am the…well, the language fails me. Organizer? Sole member? Recorded minister?</p>
<p>Either way, I am part of the Joseph Dyer Friends Meeting. This meeting began on the occasion of my upload into the system as one of the first Quakers (or, at least recorded members).</p>
<p>You must understand a fact about Quakers: if you are to run a meeting (church, as you might call it), you are going to have committees. That’s just a fact of life. Clearness committees to admit new members, committees on faith and worship, etc etc ad nauseum.</p>
<p>It is not a requirement, but as someone who spent their embodied life bounded by the constraints of a Quaker meeting, <em>not</em> having those things felt like leaving home.</p>
<p>To that end, and with the lack of other Quakers uploading, I devised a method for creating a meeting of my own. Given your work on the Ode Clade business (well done, by the way!), I thought you might appreciate my attempt at a meeting of one. I understand that you are a busy individual, but if you are able to, I would love to invite you to a meeting for worship. We will discuss more at the time should you accept.</p>
<p>Many thanks,</p>
<p>Joseph Dyer (prime)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was not the first religious movement that Ioan had found or been asked to investigate. As an historian, ey was well acquainted with the unspoken maxim that, should one wish to be at the center of grand changes, whether in society or in thought, one ought to hang around centers of religion. In the past, ey had followed (with a fork, natch) more than one cult in whatever state of formation.</p>
<p>Ah well, it was worth checking out, was it not?</p>
