This is the particular tragedy of sons against fathers. The father does not see it coming. The father still thinks of the son as his child, as someone he made, as someone who carries his hopes. The father may have failed the son in a hundred ways. The father may have been imperious, neglectful, demanding, disappointed. But the father did not expect the blade. The father was still, in some part of himself, waiting for the reconciliation, for the return of the prodigal, for the moment when the son would finally understand. In the wake of the death of Rob Reiner and his wife by their son Nick, the knowledge before the act emerges as the cruelest part. The children saw what Nick was capable of. They felt the danger in their own bodies. And yet there was likely no mechanism available to them that could have stopped it. You cannot institutionalize someone for being frightening. You cannot compel treatment for an adult who refuses it. The law protects autonomy right up until the moment autonomy becomes lethal. So the children carry a specific kind of burden: not the guilt of ignorance but the guilt of accurate perception. They knew. They were right. And being right saved no one. That's a different weight than sudden, inexplicable loss. There's no refuge in "we never could have seen this coming." They saw it coming. They lived in the seeing for years, probably. And now they have to construct a life around the fact that their fear was prophecy, that their brother was exactly what they knew him to be, and that knowing changed nothing. Rob and his wife now lie in their graves, silent. The dead make no accusations. But they don't have to. The children will accuse themselves, asking forever whether there was some door they didn't try, some call they didn't make, some version of events where they acted differently and their parents lived. There almost certainly wasn't. But the mind doesn't accept that. It keeps searching for the moment where the story could have turned.
Martha's Vineyard. You know it now as a summer retreat for the wealthy, a place of pristine beaches and celebrity sightings. But between the late seventeenth century and the middle of the twentieth, something happened there that challenges everything we think we know about disability, about language, about what it means to belong. It began with a gene. Families from the Weald, a forested region in Kent, England, emigrated to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600s. They were Puritans seeking religious freedom, and they carried with them, unknowingly, a recessive genetic trait for congenital Deafness. In 1694, a carpenter and farmer named Jonathan Lambert arrived on Martha's Vineyard with his hearing wife. Two of their seven children would be born Deaf. They were the first, but they would not be the last.
Listen to your own voice the next time you tell the truth. Notice how it flows, uninterrupted, from thought to speech. Now pay attention when you're about to lie. Feel it? That hesitation, that gathering of alternate reality before you speak it into being. Scientists have measured this pause. They've quantified it, studied it, turned it into data points and probability curves. But they haven't explained what happens inside it. That's what we're after today. Not the lie itself, but the space before the lie, that fraction of a second where consciousness does something remarkable and terrible and utterly human.
Today, we are standing in the wings of the theater, looking out at the empty stage, asking ourselves a question about the ghosts that haunt the floorboards. We are talking about the "Original Cast Recording" and how that static document, that moment frozen in time, can become a trap for every artist who follows. We are looking specifically at Wicked, a show that has not only defined a generation of theatergoers but has arguably altered the way we think about the "rightness" of a role versus the "reality" of the performer. Let us look first at the pen of the creator. Stephen Schwartz, the legendary composer, has spoken openly about crafting the score of Wicked specifically for Idina Menzel. He wasn't just writing for a green witch; he was writing for Idina. He heard the unique architecture of her larynx, that specific, stratospheric "belt" that sits somewhere between a scream and a prayer, and he built the song "Defying Gravity" to live exactly in that pocket.
Someone approaches you and asks for a piece of string. That's all they say. No context, no explanation, no qualifying details. Just: "Can I have a piece of string?" In that moment, you hold something more precarious than you might realize. You're standing at the intersection of mathematics, psychology, and potentially someone's survival. How do you answer? More importantly, how do you act?
Right now, as you listen to this, your larynx is trying to kill you. This isn't metaphorical. Your voice box sits dangerously low in your throat, creating an intersection where food and air must cross paths every time you swallow. No other mammal has this problem. Horses can drink and breathe simultaneously. Newborn humans can nurse and breathe at the same time. But somewhere between three and six months old, your larynx descended, and you joined the only species on Earth that regularly dies from eating dinner.
Here's something that should stop you cold: humans are the only animals on Earth that cry emotional tears. Not tears to clean the eyes, not tears from irritation, but tears from joy, from grief, from being overwhelmed by beauty. Elephants mourn their dead without weeping. Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors without crying at their own reflection. Your dog, who seems to love you completely, has never shed a single emotional tear. This is not speculation. This is measured fact. And nobody knows why.
The first sign something was wrong in the neighborhood came when Patricia Reeves knocked on her own door and asked her husband if Patricia Reeves lived there. She stood on the porch in her gardening clothes, dirt still under her fingernails from planting the tulips we'd all watched her plant an hour before. Her husband assumed it was a stroke. The doctors found nothing. Brain scans perfect. Blood work pristine. Patricia simply no longer knew she was Patricia. Within a week, three more people on Millbrook Road forgot themselves. Not amnesia where everything disappears. Something more precise. They remembered their children's names, their job skills, how to drive, what they had for breakfast. They just didn't remember being themselves. Marcus Chen could still perform surgery but couldn't recognize his own hands doing it. Sarah Thompson could recite every case she'd ever tried in court but insisted someone else must have tried them. They lived in their own homes as guests, polite strangers wearing their own faces.
When we invoke the Boodle Boy, we're also invoking a kind of professional shamanism. The shaman moves between worlds, bringing back knowledge from spaces others can't access. The Boodle Boy moves between disciplines, between technologies, between ways of knowing. He speaks theater to programmers and code to dramatists. He finds the musical structure in a business plan and the corporate logic in a symphony. This isn't interdisciplinary work in the academic sense; it's transdisciplinary in the most radical sense, refusing to acknowledge the borders between different forms of knowledge.
Here's a thought experiment I want you to try. Tonight, pick one moment from your day. Just one. Don't photograph it. Don't write it down. Don't tell anyone about it. Just hold it in your mind. Try to recall it tomorrow, next week, next month. Watch how it changes. Notice how it connects to other memories, how it grows or fades, how it becomes less about what happened and more about what it meant. Because here's what cognitive scientists are discovering: the difference between remembering and retrieving data isn't just technical, it's existential. When you remember something, you're not just accessing information. You're reconstituting yourself. The memory changes you as you change it. This recursive loop between the rememberer and the remembered? That's consciousness itself.
"Taking the black pill" names a posture of fatalism that migrated from fringe men's forums into the wider internet. The metaphor riffs on the pills in The Matrix, but where the "red pill" claims to reveal hard truths, the black pill says those truths are terminal and change is pointless. In its most specific and consequential register, it is tied to the incel subculture that coalesced online in the early 2010s. Encyclopædia Britannica traces the phrase's popularization to the incel blog Omega Virgin Revolt and records a further radicalization after May 23, 2014, when some forum users glorified Elliot Rodger's Isla Vista murders with talk of "going ER," a dark shorthand for destruction and loss of hope.
Consider a thought experiment: one intelligence is trained exclusively on everything known about apples. Another is trained only on oranges. They are allowed to communicate but are strictly forbidden from discussing the specifics of their respective fruits. Would the apple expert learn about oranges, and vice versa? Surprisingly, the answer is almost certainly yes. Information inevitably leaks through the structure of communication itself. While their specific knowledge is specialized, they share a common linguistic framework. They both understand concepts like color, shape, growth, and climate.
Consciousness is the raw fact of experience itself, what philosophers call qualia. It's the redness of red, the sharp bite of winter air, that peculiar texture of anxiety sitting in your chest. Consciousness is simply the lights being on, the "something it is like" to be you. A mouse likely has consciousness; it experiences pain, pleasure, fear, but probably has little to no self-awareness. Self-awareness, by contrast, is consciousness turned inward and recognizing itself. It's not just experiencing, but knowing that you are the one experiencing. It's the ability to form a concept of "I" as distinct from "not-I," to see yourself as an object in the world with a past and future.
There is no single universal definition of "Indigenous peoples." The most rigorous contemporary practice rests on a cluster of criteria: self-identification; descent from societies that predate colonization; continuity of language, institutions, and spiritual traditions; and a sustained relationship with particular territories and waters. Since the late twentieth century, international law has converged around this approach.
When you really sit with these ideas, the boundary between matter and mind starts to shimmer and dissolve. Forests think with water. Worms dream soil into being. Consciousness flickers like a strobe light, creating the illusion of continuity from discontinuous moments. We're not separate from these processes; we're expressions of them. Your thoughts at this moment are as much a product of ancient earthworm digestion and forest hydrology as they are of neural electricity. The carbon in your neurons once moved through the bodies of worms, the water in your blood once fell as rain summoned by trees.
The concept of spiritual and moral hollowness that T.S. Eliot crystallized in "The Hollow Men" (1925) emerged from a crisis of meaning that had been building in Western consciousness since the mid-nineteenth century. While Eliot's immediate inspiration came from witnessing the spiritual devastation following World War I, the metaphor of human hollowness had deeper roots in the philosophical and literary traditions he inherited. The image appears to have first gained currency through Nietzsche's declaration of God's death and his warnings about the "last men;" all comfortable, mediocre beings who had lost all capacity for greatness or genuine feeling. But even before Nietzsche, we can trace intimations of this hollowness in Kierkegaard's analysis of the aesthetic life, where individuals flit from pleasure to pleasure without ever achieving authentic selfhood.
A persistent gap between public imagination and technical reality defines the common understanding of artificial intelligence. The popular discourse, shaped by a century of fiction, centers on the fear of emergent machine consciousness, while the more urgent, tangible story is about how today's powerful, non-sentient tools are actively beginning to restructure our world. The central misunderstanding is not that AI is unimportant, but that its immediate impact is philosophical rather than what it truly is: a practical, economic, and social force compelling a fundamental human reorganization.
The old archivist, Dr. Aris Thorne, felt a jolt of audacious heresy as he slid the glossy print into the maw of the machine. It was a photograph that had become a part of the national bloodstream, an image of pure, unthinking ecstasy at the end of a long and brutal war. He had chosen Alfred Eisenstaedt's "V-J Day in Times Square" for its raw, kinetic power, a sailor dipping a nurse in a spontaneous, jubilant kiss, a sliver of peace captured forever. The AI, which he had nicknamed 'Clio' after the muse of history, whirred to life. Its function was straightforward, yet revolutionary: to take the static past and give it the breath of motion. On the large monitor, the image flickered, and then, impossibly, it began to live.
In the sprawling, often-anonymous landscape of the internet, a persistent shadow lurks, eager to sow discord and inflict reputational harm: the online troll. These digital phantoms, armed with keyboards and a seemingly endless supply of vitriol, can target individuals, products, and companies with a barrage of harassing reviews, leaving a trail of distress and frustration. Understanding how to contend with this modern-day menace requires a multi-faceted approach, one that sinks into the psychology of the troll, outlines a strategic response plan, and ultimately, empowers us to fortify our online presence against such attacks. It is a battle fought not with anger and retaliation, but with a calm, measured, and informed strategy.
It's a wonderfully curious thing, isn't it, how two little words like "less" and "fewer" can stir up so much conversation and, at times, even a little bit of friendly debate? It's a perfect example of how our language is a living, breathing entity, constantly shaped by how we, its speakers, choose to use it. Let's take a warm and friendly stroll through the landscape of these two words and see what we can discover together.
Granny InSanDiego
Actually, Bartleby says, "I would prefer not to." Big difference.