If you’re here then you have already looked as far as Medium’s projected reading length — found the number a steep one to budget — and thought long before even arriving at this sentence. Please, I implore you, read one minute at a time. I will try to keep track of this diligently, with margin breaks at regular intervals — roughly 250 to 350 words for each section — until I am sure you have gathered the gumption, wherewithal, or perhaps even (dare I say this) insight that this could be the most important piece of writing you read this week.
I do consider it that important, I think you will too, but since I’m not a betting man anymore, I will get it out there from the first who I first sent this to.
The first door on which I knocked.
Kirt Wackford would wonder how he sent me down such a rabbit hole as to find something like this, but he did (and you did, if ever we crossed paths in our lives.)
I work in the field of complexity research.
Some people are doctors, some are fishermen or cobblers or writers. I’m a researcher. I basically try to render esoteric information more meaningful to the people around me.
So…the first door on which I knocked was Scott Aaronson’s door. Mr. Aaronson is a world-renown American computer scientist. He’s a friendly and affable person, and I’ve found my exchanges with him vigorous. He happens to work in Austin; I did not knock knock on his door, but I suppose it would be a funny joke if I had.
Next I knocked on Yoshua Bengio’s door. Professor Bengio is at least equally esteemed and these were two of those people whose work I most admired; they were from “good stock” as I suppose a pompous person would say. Both quite as friendly; both with such vast inner horizons that you’d sometimes find yourself stumped by what they were saying even when you were trying to follow the best you could.
I suppose I wished I could have sent this also to JAJ, but she wasn’t exactly ‘taking my calls.’ She was among a select handful of people who pulled me — almost as though by the force of gravity itself — around in my day to day affairs even though I spoke with her perhaps thrice in the last thirty years.
She held a PhD in Nutritional Sciences from Cornell, and yes, that’s among the more challenging degrees a person might pick toward which to address their attentions. I wanted her eyes on this piece badly enough that I would probably give at least one of my fingers for such a privilege — at least if I thought of things quickly rather than wisely.
But she will see this, I think. Hopefully by that ‘word gets around’ process by which we still get most of our information.
We *rely* as an intelligent species on this concept, my dear reader. That is why I will ask you now and do it quite politely — if you see something which you consider might be ‘unusually remarkable’ about this piece please SAY SOMETHING.
I would never let the music of your life die inside you before you had your chance to sing it — were it within my power to coax your voice out — and I should very much hope you pass this piece on to others. That I might have mine out as well.
Swiftly. Regardless of how long it surely is.
Finally, I blind carbon copied the following people, all of whom I consider friends of mine and all of whose opinions I respect:
- My brother Jeff
- Brock Pierce
- Anthony Pompliano
- Daniel Kahneman
- Nick Bostrom
- Zach Shahan
- My friends Tony, David, AJ, Akash, Todd, Brian, Freddie, and Tom
All of these people *do* know that I have a condition that is known as bipolar disorder and that sometimes I’ve been adept at managing it and sometimes I have not.
If you struggle with your own mental illness — any kind, really, I sorely think you need to read to the bottom of this and allow it to illustrate for you how well you, too, can summon your innards back inside and thereafter use them to channel your “sometimes autistic” level of focus onto something useful until all the smoldering bursts into a useful flame.
I have burnt these words into the paper as surely as they have come from my soul itself — because they have. And you will clearly see not just that my English is crisp and refined but that I also have a clear head throughout.
It is not okay to fail to give ourselves credit when we’ve availed ourselves somewhat admirably of a challenging job.
The time is now for someone other than me to make a move.
Live and learn and pass it on.
Understand, deeply, what Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. counseled us to do:
Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall.
Read through. Think long. Pass it on. In life and language it is the same.
I had been attempting for several days to coordinate, consolidate, and organize all my thoughts into something other than a terrifying large snowball of Abominable Snowman proportions.
I was having some difficulty getting a quantum theorist on the phone.
Which should not have been a surprise, but…
Anyhow, I sent the following (post margin break) letter to all of the aforementioned people. The piece was to be
For wider release, should it please anyone.
It is certainly a polite read, albeit perhaps a bit long. I phrased it in the common English; I don’t personally have a PhD.
Julie [Professor Bengio’s assistant]:
Good afternoon. My name is Brian Kent and I’m sure I had a brief contact with Professor Bengio in the quite recent past;
I believe it was within approximately eight to nine months ago.
I am an independent researcher in the field of complexity theory, and I’ve an idea which I believe Professor Bengio might
‘lightly blow on’
to perhaps kindle a new kind of flame. I’ve been discussing it — to some degree — with Scott Aaronson who I’m sure both of you know.
It regards a proposition I posed to myself which I call m-superposition.
It is really quite a peculiar concept; it suggests that the brain already in some ways does behave as a quantum computer. Please don’t think me a crackpot when I say this, I have worked for far too many minutes of my life on this puzzle to have yet another door slammed in my face without anyone even cracking it open. To allow this bit of light I uncovered to become somehow useful to the world of people around me.
I will continue this as though I were speaking to both of you; I am not at all leery of sharing these, my honest views on the matter.
My supposition went as follows:
Let us suppose that the mind does work as a very unique type of quantum computer.
Should this be the case, certainly we could find within it something of an ‘on’ switch.
But, thought I…how does this relate to quantum states? How does this relate to the situation which exists in which
neither position really “exists” in what a person on the street might say is “a real place” until it is observed to be in one place or the other?
It is harder to think of this if you’re a regular person walking such a street, but then again it can also be easier.
Dr. Bengio, I’m sure, knows his way around what I’ll call “the higher level quadratic equations” — matrix algebra and the like (no thank you!)…but…
My mind isn’t ‘cluttered as much’ by rigorous language-dependent scientific proofs which, at the end of the day, rely on themselves to some degree.
In any case, m-superposition is short for mental superposition.
To my knowledge, no human being has ever been able to simultaneously consider two alternate viewpoints at the very same time — in something like a ‘third eye’ view point.
This would seem to be an “external observer’s viewpoint.”
My original hypothesis, excerpted from the piece in which I placed it just three days ago, is below. [The previous piece? It is “This cannot be…canary]
Thank you for whatever attention you may be able to direct toward this. Perhaps a leisurely afternoon read.
Brian Kent
So…
m-superposition.
What is it?
m-superposition is [loosely] the state of mind which exists when a person cannot “make up their mind” about whether to do [this thing] or [that thing]
Yes, I know that sounds interesting. How do I know this?
Because the vector I just crafted there, using English sentences, points to a palpable-to-everyone-regardless-of-native-language-and-regardless-of-species concept.
[From time to time I will refer to sentences as ‘vectors’ to describe the aggregate ‘direction’ of a thought. We will come back to why I do this a bit later.]
So now you can see that m-superposition, while it isn’t (perhaps it isn’t) the same as quantum superposition, is still a ‘reasonably valid’ concept to talk about.
Yes, we can talk about what the ‘mind state’ of being in a sort of flux between making two seemingly different decisions can, for example, do TO or FOR a person.
You see? We’re getting somewhere. Because virtually no one (as my best guess) has ever thought of things quite precisely in this way. No one has, for example, meditated on what
persistently exposing oneself to m-superposition can do to a person
Because they have not done this, they similarly have not
considered the ‘true’ [i.e., the ‘more aggregate’] impact of the decisions they make
This is a very VERY deep ‘hole of introspection.’ <<< this term will also come into fairly common use as I write. It refers to those “places” we all sometimes go where we’re stuck in an ‘infinite loop’ of contemplation. See? You knew about that one too. Probably never talked to someone about it, but you did know about it.
Ok, so here we are:
- m-superposition is the ‘position’ of a mind as it attempts — often quite valiantly — to search for the answer to the puzzle of which of these extraordinarily complex decisions is better?
- m-superposition can (as easily, I think, though not 100% sure about the ‘as easily’ part) be both fun and rewarding and agonizing and toxic/harmful.
Now we can talk about analyzing things a little more carefully than we might have before. We can talk about, for instance:
If I have a choice between a blue car which costs $20,000 and a red car which costs $27,600 and this one has this set of features and that one has this other set of features how in the name of holy heaven and god am I supposed to figure out which is better?
Author’s aside:
Were these Greek goddesses, which would I want as my companion in life?
Why would a person torment his mind so?
Athena: goddess of wisdom, warfare, and handicraft (who was later syncretized with the Roman goddess Minerva.)
vs.
Aphrodite: goddess of love, lust, beauty, pleasure, passion, procreation, and as her syncretized Roman goddess counterpart Venus, desire, sex, fertility, prosperity, and victory.
Why would a person put his head right in the middle of those two — as though he had a choice?
Same reason I did many or most things in my life: a three-way cross between trying to accomplish something desperately important, because I regarded myself as an especially intrepid spirit, and…well, being honest…to see if I could ‘get away with it.’
The G-forces in the middle of there would have to be enough to tear a ‘normal’ man’s head off. I, however, was a comic book character. <wink>
Red car/blue car. Red pill/blue pill. You can see what I’m driving at.
I’ve used a pretty simple example here, but perhaps you see what I’m driving at:
We quite literally have a nearly infinitely complicated puzzle in front of us.
And that one is only 54 words, folks.
Now I know what some are saying:
“Well, you just have to assign some sort of value to each of the features and then…blah blah blah blah
That doesn’t work, anyone who has ever tried it [very carefully] knows that it cannot possibly work, and they might even know that the reason it can’t is because that just moves us down in the hierarchy to the next lowest turtle.
You might be ‘double taking.’
I’m just saying assigning values is just as difficult on that ‘more quantum’ level as it is on the next ‘bigger picture’ (e.g., MSRP) level. You’re just plain not going to do an apples-to-apples comparison of traction in winter to the value of a push-button navigation system.
It. Won’t. Happen.
The best you can (possibly) say is “well, how the vehicle performs [this] aspect of its job is worth 30 points of the total of 100 I’m assigning and [this other] aspect is worth 20. I’ll look across every feature it has, rank them in terms of how important I think one versus the other versus the other is, and then I’ll eyeball the amount of points I want each to have.”
You see, I picked a pretty common example because even with the commonest example you can see how it becomes more ‘infinitely’ complex at each deeper level you look at it.
Everyone also kind of knows this. Maybe not consciously every single time, but they *do* kind of know it. The best choice then?
Well, it’s individually determined, obviously, but since we’re talking about m-superposition, not which car you are going to pick it’s easier to think of it this way:
Same situation. You’re a young person. Just graduated from college, got the new job, signed for a nice little bonus and are targeting $80K your first year. Fair enough. You’re out car shopping, and at this point you start allowing yourself to accept that your time is worth “about $40/hour.”
Again, fair enough.
But now let’s do an m-superposition on a ‘different spreadsheet’ of the analysis. Let’s suppose we don’t consider
This car
vs.
this car
but rather we consider
our brain at time t: the day before we are to make our final decision
vs.
our brain at time t+1 day
Note: It is *VITAL* to the analysis that we consider this as not just a short interval of time but that particular short interval of time. Fair enough.
So, what is the m-superposition of brain at time t versus t+1 day?
It is, stated loosely, a mind which is ‘in’ a continuous back-and-forth state of flux versus a mind which is ‘in’ a completely different back-and-forth state of flux.
You cannot possibly not realize this. At least not now that it has been stated with reasonable clarity: Those two m-superpositions are very different.
Ok, you can figure this out without me, but since I’m here and since I need something to do ‘while you’re contemplating’ what that means, e.g., how they are different, I will give you some brief descriptions of the ways they vary from one another.
The msp at time t is an msp which is characterized by urgency: “I have only 24 hours left to make this decision!” It is also characterized, to a certain extent, with confidence in your ability. It does have those characteristics. You can almost think of it like…well, you can think of it like you would a cube of water, which has just had some sort of dye squirted into it, and which is then flash frozen. There actually is something like a ‘pattern’ inside your brain when you’re doing that particular kind of thinking. How do we know this?
Because we can freeze it, to some degree, and then go back to it later.
Let’s contrast that, though, with msp t+1. At msp t+1, we are filled with the enjoyment we have of new experiences. Perhaps the scent of new car; perhaps the first little ‘zip’ when a traffic light turns green.
but what comes with those feelings? What is the counterpoint? Who are we ‘playing ping pong’ with now?
Well, at that point it isn’t an urgent worry but in some ways it’s at least important to track in one’s mind all the special little thrills that car is giving you. Often we’ll do this ‘to the disparagement,’ shall we say, of the other car we previously (at time t now, remember, this just ONE day removed) considered.
More succinctly: Red car meant some ‘number’ Q to us which was exactly (in our minds, at that time) or nearly exactly the same Q of the blue car. And in one day, all of the next steps appear to happen.
Why is this important?
Well, it’s certainly important from at least these perspectives:
- In 24 hours, we’ve gone from rooting for both cars to
- rooting even harder for one and “adding that to” considering the other in a more derogatory fashion.
Some are scratching their chins, I bet, but let’s roll with it for a moment…
Aren’t you wanting to believe you made the right choice?
Aren’t you even more convinced that you made the right choice with each passing day *(at least until you — perhaps simply by chance or by some misfortune — find out you have a lemon.)
I think you really are. In fact I know a little bit about confirmation bias — and it’s enough to tell you that I’m understating that last sentence: I know you are.
But let’s stop here, for a moment, and take stock. Figure out what just happened:
- Bought a car.
- Started enjoying it.
- Weren’t really ‘enjoying it’ quite exactly when we were making the decision, but feel like we’re enjoying things now. We’re “exploring features.”
- As soon as we get into the process of exploring features, unless something goes seriously wrong (i.e., that lemon) we’re something like ‘happy as a clam.’ We think things like,
- “Wow, this one is so much better than that other one was. I can ‘clearly see’ that now. So glad I made this choice and not that choice.” and we say things like,
- “Hey Joe, look at my new car. Isn’t it great? It has this, this, this, and this.” but then, because we’re just not content with being happy with what we have and ‘letting’ others be happy with what they have we ADD
- “If you’re going to buy a car, buy this kind. Not that kind. I don’t even know why they make those other ones anymore.” (Later addition: It feels to me that this is sort of a ‘species level’ event. If you’ve read Dawkins, you might agree.)
- “You’d have to be crazy to buy one of those kind anymore. What with solar panels and wind farms and stuff going in everywhere? That kind uses a fuel which costs you almost $0.10/mile. This kind you can drive for a fifth of that.” and then, if you’re especially diligent
- “Here, I’ll show you my spreadsheets. How I calculated the savings over time.”
I dove deeper into that hole of introspection than I had to, but the point is carried:
You only disparage the alternate choice when you start enjoying the current choice.
{{{WARNING!! Especially deep thought ‘trench’ ahead. Recall your Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.}}}
You also only disparage the current choice when you’re ready to consider that another choice is better.
(Later addition: This could prove critical to human affairs and understanding, if I make my guess. It basically says that the road to understanding leads through the woods/brambles of another person or person(s) viewpoints. Rather obvious in one way, but rather the opposite in another.)
And that part, actually, isn’t shocking. The shocking part is this:
Before we make a choice, neither choice is bad. After we make a choice, we semi-automatically think one choice is bad and another choice is good.
It’s phrased loosely, but it carries the point; we know this to be true.
You can argue it all you like, but the vast majority of the people in this audience will know which fundamental principle of nature I am referring to even if the ‘vector’ I supplied with my skills at the English language were insufficient to communicate it.
Yep. I know. DEEP. I warned you.
What can we ‘take’ from this? The above, and then this (the next)?
Good lord there is SO INCREDIBLY MUCH MORE additional room for thinking creatively out in this space:
The space of considering the m-superposition of our brains and then…hold your hat…
The m-superposition of our brains between this point and this point. Between this thing we’re considering and that one.
What I am saying here is pretty simple, though I’ve phrased it in a semi-complex fashion (keep in mind that this may as well require an entirely new set of terms if not perhaps a new language):
- We can, actually, measure something of the ‘utility of spending one’s time in some m-superposition’ versus just making the decision and ‘getting it over with.’ (Later note: This is the very first principle I started implementing in my life once I’d observed it enough to know it was quite safe.)
- This may (it will, but I’m trying to be modest about the way it’s stated) perhaps make decisions faster. It could also save us money.
- It will (this might come in handy soon) “free up” mental resources to use on things we’d enjoy more — like playing Clash of Clans with your kids.
[Please support Judo Sloth, he’s a great content creator on that platform and I’ve learned much from him. He’s like Ben Kenobi.] - It will *(yep it will do this)* lead us to becoming happier and more productive, because we will necessarily be spending less time agonizing about puzzles which I already flat out defined as being impossible to definitively solve. (Later: actually *I* didn’t define them to be impossible so much as I accepted what appeared to be the consensus opinion that they were impossible. That was the ‘down the turtles’ quantum conjecture. Had to do with complexity ‘overcoming’ processing power.)
- It will (probably) allow us to begin looking at our lives in a far more meaningful and far less “transactional” way. <<<< this might be the most important social benefit
Ok, five is enough. Some of you are probably gasping or reeling if you’re really catching on to what I’m saying. The mathematicians are going,
Holy fucking shit how did that guy ever figure something this complicated out. (To Dr. Bengio: sorry about the language, but I think I shouldn’t contain such things as excitement at this stage, since I have no idea what the ramifications of such a concept are or may be.)
To them I would say what everyone already knows (brief aside to the non-mathematicians: here’s where we get to laugh at all the people who previously thought they were smart — since we’re all on page 1 again.):
How did I do it?
By steps.
lol. Shoes are worn out like Gandhi’s, but by steps. Journey of a million miles, after all. <wink>
Let’s unpack 1 to 5 above. Then maybe I’ll launch this puppy of a piece of writing. Nowadays you have to be Howard Cosell to have people want to listen to you giving them the actual live game cast of what’s actually going on on this planet circa 2024.
Number 1:
Ok this one is one of my favorites, because this one is like — I dunno, the universal ‘miracle tonic.’ It’s like Oil of Olay for your brain. The first one (this was actually one of the first bits of the puzzle I ever came across, and this one is pretty friggin priceless)…the first one basically says this:
- I’m agonizing over this decision.
- I know damn good and well I’m going to agonize over it even after I make it.
- I know it can’t be useful to agonize over impossible-to-determine (or nearly impossible to determine) answers.
- The reason this is so is basically because my ‘infinite’ mind’s eyes will just keep right on discovering new levels of complexity no matter how ‘deeply I look into the matter’ <<<note the double entendre
- Because I know that looking infinitely deeper just because I can is pretty worthless. It won’t buy you an ice cream cone, for example.
Once I saw those, it sort of became obvious that I had something of a grasp on the fact that *I* was the one making *myself* miserable.
Crazy to learn it from that direction, but I think we can all consider that fact in the books.
As Mr. Holmes again said:
Speak clearly, if you speak at all; carve every word before you let it fall.
That one got carved so deeply into my brain! Woo hoo boy let me tell you. That one went as deep in my mind as the second degree burns on the inside of both of my thighs and the remembrance of setting the carpet in the family room on fire when I knocked the old-school kerosene heater over when I was up changing the channel from one cartoon to another.
Anyone who believes in God (some do, some don’t) sure as heck knows that if there is a God, He wouldn’t put an ‘obstacle’ like that in front of an innocent kid like me unless he meant for me to learn something a little bit more nuanced than, “be careful.”
And no, I am NOT joking. Just so it is 100% crystal clear.
That hurt like the living daylights were being extracted out of me through about the most tender part of my body that you can even get to. It was luckier than h-e double hockey sticks that I wasn’t also of the age that a certain even more tender part of my body was at the right (a.k.a. wrong) amount of vertical rise off the floor.
Yep. Spun around right into it in the process of running back to the couch during Saturday cartoons.
***
I didn’t live the kind of life I lived unless *someone* was meant to do it. It’s as simple as that. You can think of that what you will. Some will say something to the effect of…
“Wow, dude. That guy thinks like Jesus of Nazareth would probably think. That guy thinks to what looks like an excruciatingly painful degree.”
SOME people WILL say that. Or something to that effect.
DO YOU THINK I DO NOT KNOW THIS?
Yes I know it. What am I supposed to do about it? No one is going to be pouring olive oil on my head anytime soon I can tell you that much. I did one heck of a lot of things to make a wide variety of people awfully angry with me sometimes.
Sometimes they acted like they were flat out ready to kill me.
I mean, my grandmother wasn’t especially butthurt when I lifted her $50,000 Toyota Highlander in the middle of the night and drove it as fast as it would go down the train tracks in Leroy thinking I was already enlightened or something. She wasn’t butthurt but some of the other people in my family were. My brother Jeff was furious a few days after her death because at that point he didn’t think I had even apologized to her.
He said something to the effect that now I was never going to get the chance.
I am sorry if he’s not sitting while he’s reading this, because we’re both getting older now and neither of us needs a coronary-event-inducing infusion of stress into our systems.
Isn’t this an awfully good ‘apology’ to my grandmother — that is, if I hadn’t already apologized to her in my own way right after I got out of the hospital?
But perhaps we can’t call this an apology. Perhaps we can’t say that “this makes amends” for whatever I did or didn’t do on that day.
I usually think of an apology as a thing to be made about an issue after it is done, because one person didn’t agree on what the merits of the decision were. One person didn’t agree with the other, is what I’m saying.
I offer an apology when I have done something wrong. I do it when I do something wrong and then someone points it out to me.
Yes. I definitely *DO* try to do that. I could say,
“it’s incredibly hard. the hardest. yep. it’s the hardest of the hardest things that i have decided to do with this one and only one life I have to live. it’s hard because I wanted to be right about what I did at every moment of my life — straight through from the beginning to the end.
i never knew that it would happen that i would only be right sometimes and that most other times someone else would be right. i at the very least wanted to be right most of the time. i could deal with that. most of the time was fine. in school it was always on the 1 to 100 scale. all you had to do is beat your peers and you’d win. you could certainly lose to Jennifer Jabs or Kirt Wackford. Those two were class acts, and it was an honor to go to school with the both of them.
They both eat healthfully, exercise regularly, care deeply for the planet, and probably both are very ‘strict’ vegans — whatever kind of nonsensical term that is which people apply to one another — ah…lost the train of thought for a second…they’re both as healthy as young oxen and will probably live to a hundred or more is what I’m saying. They aren’t the ones whose hearts I am actually
worried about.
My family. My mother and father in particular. My brother Jeff, next, and then Cheryl, because she’s reasonably healthy but she could do better with the care of it. As we all could. As we all could.
Those last two four word sentences will ever only be attributed to my brother, whose wisdom is so vast that I count myself a dabbler in the theories of it, at times, when talking with him:
I do not know how he has come to know so very many — an impossible number — of incredibly difficult to figure out answers.
He would be the one I’d be sending people to, if someone said, “who does that guy say we can learn from? Who will, I dunno…play a round of golf with us?” I’d say Jeff would do it. He’d probably damn well carry your clubs if you needed him to do it but now we have kids who it would be great to put in such areas where they can learn something practical:
How to live your life…possibly over a game of golf, a dip in the ocean, some dog walking in a park…or otherwise by just being around people and experiencing the joy of their company.
As we all could. As we all could.
Those are words I can hear him saying. I can hear him regardless of which state I’m driving through. Regardless of what kind of day I’m having and no matter which season of the year it is. I don’t have to call Jeff because Jeff already taught me the most important lesson he could possibly have taught me:
It is not nearly so impressive doing anything we can do — no matter how impressively we’ve mastered the skill of what we’re doing — it is not nearly so impressive, I say, as to never tell a soul you can do it.
Had to make an exception this time, Jeff.
Master that skill, the God in me writes: Master that skill, and then after that you can come talk to me some more.
That is, at least as it currently appears to me, the limit to which our current human consciousnesses can consider things. I suppose a person could stand there and point the flashlight around and say, “you sure? You sure there’s not more? there has to be another quick trapdoor to a deeper level.”
Nope. There isn’t. To the best of *my* ability to ‘calculate’ as a human, the complexity of the puzzle I just unraveled for you is effectively the nearest it is practical to achieve a complexity which still remains short of infinitely complex.
Plainer English: that’s like ‘bouncing a laser between two mirrors trying to create heat out of nothing’ complex. You might as well not even bother calculating out whether or how you could do it.
Someone else: “But…but…that would be an infinite energy machine if we could figure that out…that’s one we probably ought to ‘look more closely into.’”
Me: “Isn’t this good enough, I mean, at this point? What will it take us to implement this whole treasure trove of knowledge to a population leery of reading anything more than four minutes long?”
Freaking human beings and the way they usually think about things. Let’s make this REAL simple:
Theoretical is never, never, NEVER better than actual.
It IS never better. It’s worse. It’s almost, well…
It’s almost the literal definition of incalculably worse.
Why is actual so much better than theoretical? Well, it’s because actual — like, actual enjoyment of a movie, for example — in actual enjoyment of a movie versus theoretical enjoyment of a movie you’re actually THERE.
Like…well, it’s better to think of it like an amusement park than a movie. So going to Darien Lake and riding The Viper were two things to do back in the day. Skiing at Swain or Kissing Bridge was a thing, and there was always some fishing you could do where I grew up. My dad loved the bird watching.
I tell you! You messed with my dad’s birds and you better make sure you were in a place where he wouldn’t find you should he decide to come looking for you.
My dad was a dad who was not to be messed with. He’d squash your head like a peanut is what he would do. He’d make sure you never “forgot to put back his tools” ever again, I can tell you that much.
Do you know he (one day he did this, and you’ll be like, “no WAY. NO WAY your father did that to you! Did you tell someone about it?”
[Trails off…]
Tell someone? TELL someone? Who the FU(K was I supposed to tell? The UN? Was I supposed to phone the Pope or the President or something? You’re darn right I didn’t tell anyone. <<see there what I was doing was ‘leading you down a primrose path’. I did this to make sure that you remember what I told you at the very beginning…
ah…that’s it. We’re out of time for tonight, folks. Your fair writer has to turn in for the night.
Up next: Legends After the Fall
