Index:
1. Jasmine
2. Kerry
3. Jasmine
4. Kerry
5. Jasmine
6. Kerry
7. Rabbit Season
8. Duck Season
9. Rabb- err, Jasmine
>Even if not, perhaps that is not such a bad thing. After all, I
believe
>that part of your desire to "grow up" faster stems from being treated like
a
>child (of course); your objective isn't really to become Corinna Marks.
You
>already behave in an older fashion, so if you look less like a child,
people
>will probably treat you less like one. Thereby serving your purpose.
An extremely cogent point, Professor. Boy, I spend all this time
surrounded by teenagers, and sometimes even I forget that there's more to
life than the old boy-girl soap opera.
You're right. Looking older will help me be taken more seriously in many
situations. Not being immediately identifiable as a child prodigy in
college and beyond will no doubt be a blessing in and of itself.
>> Hmm, I wonder if the chemical response is what Archangel was talking
about
>> when she said "Some things are better experienced in the flesh." If so,
>> that could affect some extremely-long-term plans of mine.
>
>Hmm, I wouldn't know. You haven't told me about your extremely long-term
>plans. ^_^
I'm not sure I should. They're kind of . . . weird.
>[OOC: BTW, if I recall correctly, part of Ivan's deal was also that she
>couldn't directly or indirectly affect any of the members of HALF (without
>their conscious consent, I assume), so really, we could go anywhere and not
>be affected]
[OOC: I do believe you're right. Still, she *is* a demoness (or a
manifestation of Ivan's libido, which is hardly preferable). Given that
her whole portfolio is "repressed desire," who knows what she construes as
"consent"? I know *I'd* at least want to know in what places I needed to
be on my guard.]
>If it were, indeed, his "fault", I'd say that he is probably unaware of it.
>Or else he subconsciously is, and personifies it as a demon as a means of
>avoidance. Indeed, I find that the very use of the term "demon" tends to
>imply something psychological, though that may just be me.
Maybe. To me, "demon" implies "nasty thing with horns." But maybe I watch
too much TV.
>[OOC: Wheee, I always love the opportunity to show that anything can be
>twisted around if you look at it the right way ^_^ ]
[OOC: Hee. Yeah, I like your take.]
>[OOC: snicker. I don't recall what the gifts were offhand, but I haven't
>heard them mentioned for awhile, so I guess they were a bit of an
>anticlimax.]
[OOC: Jasmine was specifically referring to the spiritual strength that
Andrael bestowed upon the soul-sick Tyler. Since that was supposed to be
both Tyler's own gift and Jasmine's, you'd think it'd have been a bit more
effective than it ended up being. Yeah, I know, can't subvert free will,
and all that -- but Jasmine's hardly going to buy such a flimsy excuse from
those lazy good-for-nothings in Heaven. ;) ]
>Hmm. Interesting. Was Mr...err, Ivan present at the time?
Yes, he was. In fact, the theory that the entity was an angel was his,
first. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser.
>I'm so glad you agree on the latter statement. It doesn't get any better,
>except in that otherpeople around you have the same problem. It also helps
>somewhat to talk about it, even if you don't get any especially useful
>advice. Shared burdens and all that.
Guess so.
>And I'm afraid I have little advice to offer. In my ideal world, people
>wouldn't have any problem with what we are doing to further our educations.
>Most people are not biologists and do not understand that the sociological
>taboos we face have far more to do with the puritanism that was at the
>foundation of this country's history than any basis in reality. Those who
>are aware of our gifts, in particular, should be aware that we are far in
>advance of our peers in almost every respect short of physiological
>development (and in some cases, that too).
You'd think so, wouldn't you? And *some* of the Parental Types I know do
take that attitude. Tyler's mom in particular seemed to have no problem
using us as her info-gathering arm against the Nephandi cult. It was
*almost* as if we really were just another allied cabal.
My dad's different, though. Even with our deal, I wouldn't want to push
things too far.
Archangel had a theory that the Awakened children of mages actually have a
worse time of it than people who Awaken among mundanes, because hiding
their secrets and protecting the "less able" is practically second nature
to any experienced mage. Wonder if she's right?
>I imagine that if you used the "deal" with your father as a defense in ths
>situation, his (most coherent) response is likely to be that there "will be
>plenty of opportunity for such things later". The only advice I can offer
>there is to point out that we, in particular, are in far more dangerous
>situations than the norm. There may very well not BE a later.
Y'know, I'm not sure that's really the tack to take with an overprotective
father.
"Sure, dad, maybe I'm studying naked boys a little too soon, but hey, I
could wind up DEAD tomorrow!"
>Very well, I accept your promise. Although I can't for the life of me
think
>of anything that these studies might reveal that I wouldn't wish you to
see.
>[OOC: Yeah, right]
[OOC: So you think otherwise, then?]
>I disagree. Although your altruism was not sincere (cynics would say that
>it never is), the psychological harm that may have been done could very
well
>be subtle, yet pervading. You yourself are convinced that you deserved
>this. I find that disturbing.
Oh, c'mon, Kerry. I'm not that fragile. You're getting as bad as the
Elliots' housekeeper, who has that strange belief in radioactive puberty.
I've always gone to school with Tyler, which means I've been going to
school with kids four years older than me for as long as I've been going to
school at all. You don't think I've been called worse, by people with a
lot less underlying affection for me than Tyler has?
I've been hurt by name-calling, yeah. And probably it did add extra oomph
to my wanting to look and act older. But that wasn't one of those times,
believe me.
>Rethink it. Don't you think that the "sting" you mention was an effective
>behavioral modifier, even WITHOUT Tyler's damage to your self-image?
Well, I *did* go ahead and do it, though I confessed to him shortly
afterward.
>Jasmine, I'm not setting you apart for unusual niceness [OOC: he's probably
>wrong], but like it or not, you ARE in a larval stage. We intend to speed
>the process of getting you OUT of it, but for the time being you are
>particularly sensitive to subtle harms that people may inflict. They may
>not even realize they are inflicting such upon you, probably because they
>are too careless to think it through. I cannot abide that behavior,
>especially to a friend.
Professor, you're too sweet for your own good.
But then, I believe in defending my friends too. Just as long as it's a
two-way street.
>Hmm. Well, she has not seen fit to inform me of her reaction, so I
wouldn't
>know.
Um, well, she and Tyler had sex. Implying that, once she got that initial
push past her own inhibitions, she was quite willing to do the deed. And
thus supporting your hypothesis.
>> >Actually ... I may be overstepping the bounds here, but I'm surprised
you
>> >aren't affected more deeply by his pursuit of others.
>>
>> Oh, I'm affected, all right.
>
>Forgive me. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't care at all, but still
>... you seem to rely on the fact that he will eventually come back to you.
>In spite of the fact that you are attempting to change the future (and are
>likely have succeeded). I'd hate to see you spend half your life chasing
>him (once you decide to start being active in your pursuits) only to
>discover that nothing is ever going to come of it, or to discover that
>something does come of it ... and it isn't everything you'd hoped.
Don't think I don't worry about these things . . . especially after that
future trip.
But again, I can't really do anything to guarantee any particular outcome,
except live my life and hope for the best.
>C, in particular, would seem to indicate that it might not be everything
>you'd hope for. Even if his policy has changed, whatever policy he has
>replaced it with does not appear to be helping prevent that occurrence ...
>else it would not have been an issue recently.
Well, by the time he switched from Caitlin to Mel, he'd already been
dragged into the cult, and was being made to forget the full extent of his
own actions.
If he'd just gone with Mel when he first fell for her, Mala and Co.
wouldn't have been able to get their Caitlin-shaped hooks into him.
(Of course, if he'd eschewed the "date girls I don't like" policy and
actually stayed *completely* faithful to his presumed future marriage with
me, the same would be true. But maybe that's asking too much of the
adolescent male libido.)
>> At least Mel is unlikely to be a corrupting influence, and apparently
>> refuses to actually have sex with him (well, again). Since, according to
>> him, teenage boys feel the way I felt on the Night of Raging Lust *all
the
>> time*
>
>Well, I have no idea how you felt. If you could provide me with that data
>in a manner similar to your "prepackaged zip" of things about Tyler, I
could
>possibly compare them to my own experience.
Actually, that's *part* of the "ZIP file." You can have that whenever
you'd like, by the way. It might be best to do the transfer during our
next private session at the Halfway House, just in case you need a little
time to adjust to having my memories in your head.
>
>>, then by the time I'm ready to mount a direct challenge (which won't
>> be quite as many years as previously expected, thanks to you), he should
>> be quite willing to consider alternatives.
>
>Keep in mind that Tyler will still be gaining chronological age at the same
>rate you are. If, as you said, people normally take that into
consideration
>(even though they shouldn't), then he may not be any more willing to
>consider you a valid choice than he has up until now.
Hrmm. Always have to throw a wrench into the works, don't you, Kerry? ;)
Well, let's do the math. We know that at this point, a fellow 13-year-old
is definitely old enough to have moved from the "disgusting" stage to the
"valid choice" stage. Of course, by the time I'm 13, he'll be 17. But, if
your efforts can give me roughly Corinna's rate of development, I'll *look*
around 17. That might just be enough. It's still a little more than three
years off, at any rate, but I think that's the best I'm going to do, period.
>Keep in mind that you
>have already both been in adult bodies together ... and nothing happened.
Well, not quite nothing. Re-read your interview notes, Professor.
Specifically, the "have you ever kissed a boy" question. Of course, that
*was* pretty much entirely my doing.
>I'm not sure how accurate this outcome is, but I don't want you to get your
>hopes up too high.
I know, and thanks for the whack with the Reality Stick. Still, I think
you may be a little too pessimistic. I'm still his best friend, after all,
and whatever I lack in sex appeal *will* be made up eventually.
>
>> Well [OOC: she said defensively], it wasn't JUST the visit to the future.
>> Back when he was my age, Tyler died and came back, and while he was dead
>he
>> saw flashes of the life he *should* have had, including being married to
>> me. And we weren't even really friends at the time, so it wasn't just
>> wishful thinking or even a "most probable outcome at this point" kind of
>> thing.
>
>I assume you knew one another at the time?
Well, yes.
>Being together, or even marriage, do not at all imply a positive outcome,
as
>I'm certain that you are all too aware.
Well, no. But it does mean we have a job to do, and we can't afford to be
as self-centered and generally unpleasant as our older selves were in that
future.
Actually, for what it's worth, my older self would agree with you,
apparently. She left a message on my computer before we were all switched
back to our proper times, and she picked as a .sig quote this entry from
the Devil's Dictionary:
"LOVE: A condition of temporary insanity, curable by marriage."
Go figure.
>> As for that future we visited, it was actually sort of a worst-case
>> scenario.
>
>This would hardly be my definition of a worst-case scenario.
Oh, there was more. Because our future selves were such terrible people,
the whole prophecy business didn't get taken care of, and most of our
parents' cabal wound up dead trying to correct the mistake.
Still, I'm sure it could be even worse. Did you have a particular scenario
in mind?
>Incidentally, it occurs to me that you mentioned your daughter as
>"hypothetical". Certainly, the fact that you are trying to change the
>future implies that her future existence could be called into question. So
>I have yet another question for you: do you WANT that hypothetical daughter
>in the future? Because we could look into ways of increasing or decreasing
>the odds of at least her physical appearance remaining the same.
>
>And, by the way, I don't know if you know, but the odds against that
>occurring naturally are pretty high. Consider the quantity of fertilizing
>cells released by the male in even a single coupling. Now consider that
the
>timing of that incident obviously determines whether that that one
>particular unique cell is even present or not, and you begin to see the
>difficulties involved.
Yipe. And the timing is exactly what *will* change, if we have anything to
say about it. My older self in that future was a wife and mother at 16,
neither entirely by choice. I'll bet that having things happen that way
was part of what made her and her husband turn out the way they did.
As for whether I'd like to have the same daughter again, I don't know.
Even if we were to set up a physical similarity, I can only hope that *my*
daughter will grow up with more active and loving parents than the version
I met.
>I see that you are aware of my line of thinking. If you want my advice,
I'd
>say pursue your own life. Don't worry about any future guarantee; either
it
>will happen or it will not. You should be friends with Tyler, and help him
>not fall into corruption, but if you take this prophecy too seriously, I
>fear that you will either waste many chances at your own happiness, or else
>drive yourself mad.
Well, I don't like the advice, but I don't see that I really have much
choice but to take it. If I picked up one thing from that future, it was
that if I actually have to choose between being Tyler's best friend and
being his wife, I'll pick the first one.
>And by the way, though I hesitate to suggest it, have you considered the
>fact that marriage is hardly permanent in today's society? You implied it
>with your comment of "sniping". ot only are you not guaranteed happiness
>with Tyler, but even if you briefly find it, you are not guaranteed that it
>will last.
That's true too, I suppose. He is going to be some kind of celebrity rich
guy, like the ones you see in magazines announcing Marriage #4. Even if
our wedding itself is as written into the fabric of spacetime as Katy said,
that doesn't mean I won't be one of a series.
Jeez, Kerry. You really know how to pile on the bad news. I think this
time you owe me the ice cream personally.
>Frankly, I find the entire concept highly disturbing. Romance should occur
>free of such concerns. Just you knowing about the prophecy may have doomed
>you to an unhappy version of it.
That'll be a particularly large tub of ice cream, I think.
>> If Tyler does marry
>> me, will it be because he wants to (and would've wanted to anyway), or
>> will it be because he thinks he "has" to and has been ignoring other
>options?
>
>The latter seems rather more likely to me.
Hey now. What happened to "his loss"? Is there some reason why he
couldn't just want to marry me? No, no, you're way too polite to have
actually meant it that way. But what did you mean?
>Even if you work out your equations, how can you be certain that they are
>unbiased? We etherites believe that the experimenter determines the
>outcome, to a rather large degree. Your equations may work perfectly well
>when it comes to anyone but Tyler ... and then help you no more than
knowing
>the prophecy or the future does.
Does this never end? Do you have a *happy* thought in your brain, Kerry?
>[OOC: Sexist in which respect? Obviously, in that it discusses one
gender's
>perception of another, it is by definition sexist. But aside from that?
>(I'm not denying it, I just suspect that I'm not following it completely.)
]
[OOC: Perhaps I was reading the passage with too much Victorian Etherite
Pomposity, but I took the "us/them" distinction as an example of the
occasionally decried but still common assumption in scientific studies that
males are the normal baseline humans, and females a mysterious deviation
therefrom. Hence Science helping (or failing to help) "us" understand
"them." You may not have meant it that way, of course.]
>[OOC: Heh. Well, actually, I was thinking more along the lines of knowing
>when to turn it on or off (magick is an act of will, after all). But your
>problem fits too. It also raises questions of Jasmine doing too many
things
>at once. If she's doing an effect over in the girl's dorm, while Tyler is
>out boinking a cultist and she wants him to "be a man" so to speak, then
>suddenly Jasmine is doing two distinct effects simultaneously. Which is
>supposedly impossible by the rules, unless they are done as a conjunctional
>effect.
[OOC: The idea is that the effect was created in its entirety when the
watch was made, and given a total duration of 12 hours. The only odd part
is the ability of the wearer to turn the duration countdown on and off over
an apparently indefinite period of time. That may just be too much of an
oddity, however.]
>Here's a question: Did Jasmine put in the images of Tyler's and her own
>older selves? She wouldn't know what Kerry would look like as an adult,
>though I suppose she could make something up or extrapolate.]
[OOC: Right, she'd be working from less data in Kerry's case. But the
intended usage in his case requires more that he look like *an* adult than
that he look specifically like his own future self. So a bit more leeway
is probably acceptable.]
> You're right. Looking older will help me be taken more seriously
in many
> situations. Not being immediately identifiable as a child prodigy in
> college and beyond will no doubt be a blessing in and of itself.
No doubt.
> I'm not sure I should. They're kind of . . . weird.
Weird is my middle name. OK, actually, it isn't. But you know what I mean.
Honestly, Jasmine, have you forgotten who you are speaking to? ^_^
> [OOC: I do believe you're right. Still, she *is* a demoness (or a
> manifestation of Ivan's libido, which is hardly preferable). Given that
> her whole portfolio is "repressed desire," who knows what she construes as
> "consent"? I know *I'd* at least want to know in what places I needed to
> be on my guard.]
[ooc: true]
> [OOC: Jasmine was specifically referring to the spiritual strength that
> Andrael bestowed upon the soul-sick Tyler. Since that was supposed to be
> both Tyler's own gift and Jasmine's, you'd think it'd have been a bit more
> effective than it ended up being. Yeah, I know, can't subvert free will,
> and all that -- but Jasmine's hardly going to buy such a flimsy excuse
from
> those lazy good-for-nothings in Heaven. ;) ]
[ooc: heh]
> >Hmm. Interesting. Was Mr...err, Ivan present at the time?
>
> Yes, he was. In fact, the theory that the entity was an angel was his,
> first. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser.
Indeed. One could probably make quite the study of our Mr. Neville. But my
interests presently lie elsewhere. Perhaps I will note it for later
investigation.
> >I'm so glad you agree on the latter statement. It doesn't get any
better,
> >except in that other people around you have the same problem. It also
helps
> >somewhat to talk about it, even if you don't get any especially useful
> >advice. Shared burdens and all that.
>
> Guess so.
So...err. Just so you know, I like to think of myself as a good listener,
when I'm not caught up in a project. It seems to run in my family.
> My dad's different, though. Even with our deal, I wouldn't want to push
> things too far.
Hmm.
> Archangel had a theory that the Awakened children of mages actually have a
> worse time of it than people who Awaken among mundanes, because hiding
> their secrets and protecting the "less able" is practically second nature
> to any experienced mage. Wonder if she's right?
I have no idea. I'm not sure it can be proven either way. It probably
matters more on circumstance than category.
> Y'know, I'm not sure that's really the tack to take with an overprotective
> father.
I wouldn't know, not being a father, nor possessing an overprotective one.
> "Sure, dad, maybe I'm studying naked boys a little too soon, but hey, I
> could wind up DEAD tomorrow!"
'Too soon' is a concept subject to some debate, as young children frequently
investigate one another as a matter of course. It is natural curiosity and
I frankly feel that it is wrong to shun it. I imagine that bottling up that
curiosity is partially responsible for causing some children to lose
interest in learning, and for others to fall into rampant dangerous
promiscuity.
Basically, parents restrain their children from their instinctive
investigations ... which means that the curiosity is usually either stamped
out, or repressed until puberty hits. At which point said children
inevitably lose any semblence of self-control. The problem seems to get
worse with every generation
But your point is taken.
> >Very well, I accept your promise. Although I can't for the life of me
think
> >of anything that these studies might reveal that I wouldn't wish you to
see.
> >[OOC: Yeah, right]
>
> [OOC: So you think otherwise, then?]
[OOC: Maaaaaayyyybe... ]
> Oh, c'mon, Kerry. I'm not that fragile. You're getting as bad as the
> Elliots' housekeeper, who has that strange belief in radioactive puberty.
Ah, well, that's different. People have some strange taboos and notions
about their physiologies.
> I've always gone to school with Tyler, which means I've been going to
> school with kids four years older than me for as long as I've been going
to
> school at all. You don't think I've been called worse, by people with a
> lot less underlying affection for me than Tyler has?
I wouldn't know. The last four years of my education have consisted mainly
of private tutors arranged for by my grandfather, with only the occasional
class in school. Before that, I attended public school, but I do not recall
a lot of profanity and things of that nature in third grade.
> I've been hurt by name-calling, yeah. And probably it did add extra oomph
> to my wanting to look and act older. But that wasn't one of those times,
> believe me.
I suppose I must take your word for it. But do bear in mind that I am
overly fond of formality and politeness ... I would react more strongly to
what others consider a casual bit of profanity than perhaps they intended.
Just a measure of how carelessly people treat one another, really.
> >Jasmine, I'm not setting you apart for unusual niceness [OOC: he's
probably
> >wrong], but like it or not, you ARE in a larval stage. We intend to
speed
> >the process of getting you OUT of it, but for the time being you are
> >particularly sensitive to subtle harms that people may inflict. They may
> >not even realize they are inflicting such upon you, probably because they
> >are too careless to think it through. I cannot abide that behavior,
> >especially to a friend.
>
> Professor, you're too sweet for your own good.
Hmm. Perhaps, perhaps not. Sometimes I wonder.
> But then, I believe in defending my friends too. Just as long as it's a
> two-way street.
I see.
> >Hmm. Well, she has not seen fit to inform me of her reaction, so I
wouldn't
> >know.
>
> Um, well, she and Tyler had sex. Implying that, once she got that initial
> push past her own inhibitions, she was quite willing to do the deed. And
> thus supporting your hypothesis.
My hypothesis is undoubtedly pleased to hear that. ^_^
> But again, I can't really do anything to guarantee any particular outcome,
> except live my life and hope for the best.
Exactly the point I was trying to get across.
> (Of course, if he'd eschewed the "date girls I don't like" policy and
> actually stayed *completely* faithful to his presumed future marriage with
> me, the same would be true. But maybe that's asking too much of the
> adolescent male libido.)
That would depend partially on how much stock he put in such things as this
prophecy.
> Actually, that's *part* of the "ZIP file." You can have that whenever
> you'd like, by the way. It might be best to do the transfer during our
> next private session at the Halfway House, just in case you need a little
> time to adjust to having my memories in your head.
Sounds good to me.
> Hrmm. Always have to throw a wrench into the works, don't you, Kerry? ;)
Apologies. I didn't mean to.
> >Keep in mind that you
> >have already both been in adult bodies together ... and nothing happened.
>
> Well, not quite nothing. Re-read your interview notes, Professor.
> Specifically, the "have you ever kissed a boy" question. Of course, that
> *was* pretty much entirely my doing.
Hmm, yes. Not exactly what I meant, though.
> >I'm not sure how accurate this outcome is, but I don't want you to get
your
> >hopes up too high.
>
> I know, and thanks for the whack with the Reality Stick. Still, I think
> you may be a little too pessimistic. I'm still his best friend, after
all,
> and whatever I lack in sex appeal *will* be made up eventually.
As you and I both said before ... life is complicated. The things that seem
simple in theory can be excruciatingly difficult in practice.
> >I assume you knew one another at the time?
>
> Well, yes.
I ask because it would give more credence to this prophecy business if he
didn't actually know you then.
> Actually, for what it's worth, my older self would agree with you,
> apparently. She left a message on my computer before we were all switched
> back to our proper times, and she picked as a .sig quote this entry from
> the Devil's Dictionary:
>
> "LOVE: A condition of temporary insanity, curable by marriage."
> Go figure.
Actually, I would disagree with your older self on that. My point was,
though they do NOT imply a positive outcome, they SHOULD.
> Oh, there was more. Because our future selves were such terrible people,
> the whole prophecy business didn't get taken care of, and most of our
> parents' cabal wound up dead trying to correct the mistake.
>
> Still, I'm sure it could be even worse. Did you have a particular
scenario
> in mind?
You and Tyler get married. At some point, before or during the marriage,
Tyler manages to be swayed over to the forces of corruption. Sure, he's
under scrutiny now ... but is he going to be for the rest of his life?
Tyler uses the marriage, your relationship, your emotions -- all of it -- as
a means of corrupting you. Furthermore, the people that are supposed to be
"saving the world", are possibly likewise corrupted, being under your care
and direction.
There have been many warnings regarding the Nephandi printed in the pages of
Paradigma over the last century. These stuck out in my mind; as I said, I
cannot abide betrayal. In many ways, they are almost exactly like a literal
corruption ... a plague, if you will.
> As for whether I'd like to have the same daughter again, I don't know.
> Even if we were to set up a physical similarity, I can only hope that *my*
> daughter will grow up with more active and loving parents than the version
> I met.
Well, it's an option to think about, at any rate. Personally, having met a
loved one in the future, I would likely make every attempt to ensure their
existence in the future. Otherwise it would seem to me a bit too much like
not caring for them at all. Possibly like murder. Not having been in that
situation, I can't say which for sure.
> Well, I don't like the advice, but I don't see that I really have much
> choice but to take it. If I picked up one thing from that future, it was
> that if I actually have to choose between being Tyler's best friend and
> being his wife, I'll pick the first one.
I am glad. In my opinion, the latter concept should never be without the
former concept, in the first place. If you find yourself thinking it likely
that it may be a one-or-the-other situation, then something is probably
wrong.
> That's true too, I suppose. He is going to be some kind of celebrity rich
> guy, like the ones you see in magazines announcing Marriage #4. Even if
> our wedding itself is as written into the fabric of spacetime as Katy
said,
> that doesn't mean I won't be one of a series.
> Jeez, Kerry. You really know how to pile on the bad news. I think this
> time you owe me the ice cream personally.
Hmm. You may be right. Oddly, I hadn't considered myself pessimistic
before. It's not a natural attitude for members of my tradition. On the
other hand, if your marriage to tyler turns out to be less than you'd hoped
for AND one of a series ... well, I don't want to say that's a positive
thing, but a certainly less negative one than if you were stuck with him.
Very well, I shall -- at your convenience -- provide you with Ice Cream of a
flavor and at a place of your choosing. If it involves going to town,
perhaps we can do some other fun activity while we are there. You may also
wish to make use of the occasion to test my skirt-attention-pheremone cycle.
[OOC. Translation: "Jasmine, will you go out with me? Yes/No/Maybe"
^_^ ]
Perhaps before or after our next session? That is likely to be after my
study of Miss Marks, and if that is as trying as I suspect it will be, I may
partake of some of this "universal medicine" myself.
> >Frankly, I find the entire concept highly disturbing. Romance should
occur
> >free of such concerns. Just you knowing about the prophecy may have
doomed
> >you to an unhappy version of it.
>
> That'll be a particularly large tub of ice cream, I think.
Err, on the other hand, perhaps knowing about the prophecy may enable you to
avoid the worst of it.
Seriously, I find myself torn on the issue: Ignorance is a vice.
Especially for people like us, and those around us.
Bu by the same token, taking too much stock in predestination can destroy
you. It certainly is not conducive to romance ... or at least not
spontanaeity. As you have seen.
> >> If Tyler does marry
> >> me, will it be because he wants to (and would've wanted to anyway), or
> >> will it be because he thinks he "has" to and has been ignoring other
> >options?
> >
> >The latter seems rather more likely to me.
>
> Hey now. What happened to "his loss"? Is there some reason why he
> couldn't just want to marry me? No, no, you're way too polite to have
> actually meant it that way. But what did you mean?
I did not mean to imply that he could not want to marry you, as in there is
something wrong with you. Certainly not that. Sigh. Now I suppose there
will be an ice cream making machine in my near future.
No, all that I meant was a continuation of my prior thought. Romance should
be free of such concerns ... and if he buys into the prophecy thing too
much, then he won't be ABLE to see you for you -- and thus wouldn't have the
chance to develop a romance.
He would eventually only be able to see you as "the girl I have to marry no
matter what I want", or alternately, "the girl that I am guaranteed to
marry, no matter how poorly I treat her, or how much I botch up my life".
Neither of these attitudes can lead to a healthy relationship or fulfill the
US Government's Recommended Dinner Angstrom. This is exactly why I propose
pursuing your life as if you had no such guarantee.
If you want him to marry you for you, have him prove that. Don't just
accept the marriage as a given. He should demonstrate that he wants it to
occur. He should fight to make it occur, by doing the right things. If he
doesn't -- if he continues to carry on with other girls in spite of you, and
get tempted by the dark side, etc. -- then you'd know that he is not
marrying you for the right reasons.
[OOC: And our next guest is Dr. Kerry Gilman, Love Therapist. You should
see the image that i have of Kerry writing that. Pounding his fist on the
desk, making sweeping gestures with his off hand as if he were giving a pep
speech, pointing at the air dramatically, etc. ]
> >Even if you work out your equations, how can you be certain that they are
> >unbiased? We etherites believe that the experimenter determines the
> >outcome, to a rather large degree. Your equations may work perfectly
well
> >when it comes to anyone but Tyler ... and then help you no more than
knowing
> >the prophecy or the future does.
>
> Does this never end? Do you have a *happy* thought in your brain, Kerry?
Yes. Most of them are either several years out of date, or centered around
the joy of my work. Mind you, I hadn't consciously realised that until just
now.
> [OOC: Perhaps I was reading the passage with too much Victorian Etherite
> Pomposity, but I took the "us/them" distinction as an example of the
> occasionally decried but still common assumption in scientific studies
that
> males are the normal baseline humans, and females a mysterious deviation
> therefrom. Hence Science helping (or failing to help) "us" understand
> "them." You may not have meant it that way, of course.]
[OOC: Ah. No, I didn't mean it that way (though it may be a subconscious
habit Kerry picked up from Paradigma). He was just saying us, as in males.
He does consider females a mysterious deviation from what he understands --
himself -- otherwise he wouldn't be attempting to study them. Basically,
he's just looking across the "gender gap" at the unexplored country and
recognizing it as such. ]
> [OOC: Right, she'd be working from less data in Kerry's case. But the
> intended usage in his case requires more that he look like *an* adult than
> that he look specifically like his own future self. So a bit more leeway
> is probably acceptable.]
[ooc: yup]
K.
>Weird is my middle name. OK, actually, it isn't. But you know
what I
mean.
>Honestly, Jasmine, have you forgotten who you are speaking to? ^_^
Sorry, Professor. Didn't mean to suggest you were too "normal" or
something.
It's just that this particular weird is weird in a way that would be likely
to push the conservative buttons in someone like Vincent . . . and the
"protective" buttons in someone like Tyler, my dad, or you. So I've been
keeping it to myself.
But this is all wishful thinking right now, anyway, and even if I did
implement it, it wouldn't happen for decades (or possibly even centuries).
And you just might be able to help out, especially with your ideas about
organic computers. So why not? Just remember, if you start to find this
creepy or dangerous rather than merely scientifically intriguing . . . just
go listen to that music of yours or something until you can appreciate it
properly.
You remember I told you I get antsy when there's knowledge to be had, and I
don't have it? Well, I don't just mean that for little things, like your
lab notes or Tyler's mating habits. I want to know *everything*, Kerry, or
at least everything that's knowable. How many stars are in the sky? What
happened before the dawn of time? How many externalized manifestations of
Ivan's libido can dance on the head of a pin?
Now obviously, my current hardware is not suited for such investigations.
So I intend to upgrade. Cyborging is a bit too Technocratic, and besides,
I don't know anyone in that field. Now that I've met you, if the
organic-computing thing takes off, I might start with something in the
biotech line. You've already pointed out that my brain can match the speed
advantages of most computers, and I assume you'll want to study that for
use in your brain-computers. It should be no problem, then, to re-apply
any later improvements to speed, memory, processor capacity, or whatever to
the original *human* brain, specifically mine.
Ultimately, though, I've got to go further than that. I know from
Correspondence training that space is just a perceptual convention -- a
graphical interface between us and the universe. I assume time is the same
way. Right now, I can push the limits of the interface with my gear, but
the ultimate problem is the body itself. On the great computer of reality,
I may be using a keyboard where most people are stuck with just a mouse,
but what I'm looking for is the equivalent of a direct neural hookup. No
peripherals and no interface getting in the way. Just my mind, and the
Code. The purity of raw intellect. That's the immortality I want, more
than an unaging body or an upload into some constructed reality.
Heh. I think that may be the first time I've actually put it into words,
even to myself. For as long as I can remember, it's just been there in my
head, getting stronger every time I ran into another question I couldn't
answer. Maybe it's because of where I was born. I don't actually even
know if the place had a name, but it wasn't on Earth. If this spacetime is
the universe's graphical interface, that was the command line. Those math
tricks I can do? There, they were as natural and necessary as breathing.
Before I even really knew I *had* a physical body, my mind was already
making itself at home in *that* place -- and I think it's always missed it.
Your discussion of chemical vs. intellectual emotion has reminded me that
some of the body's contributions may not be entirely expendable. If I ever
get to the point of actually working on this plan, I may have to figure out
a way around that. Then again, maybe I've just gotten used to the
aesthetics of this particular "peripheral," and things like the rush of
adrenaline are really as unimportant to the REAL experience of existing as,
say, the traditional arrangement of the keyboard is to computing.
>Well, it's an option to think about, at any rate. Personally, having met a
>loved one in the future, I would likely make every attempt to ensure their
>existence in the future. Otherwise it would seem to me a bit too much like
>not caring for them at all. Possibly like murder. Not having been in that
>situation, I can't say which for sure.
Oh, I agree. Now that I've met her, weird circumstances or not, Lise is
just as real as anyone else I know, and the idea of doing something to
*prevent* her existence gives me a really creepy feeling. But even if we
did arrange for her to be genetically the same child, there'd still be the
same problem as with your Caitlin replacement: there's no way she'll
actually have the same experiences in life as the Lise I met. I certainly
hope she'll be born later, and that I'll be a better mother than that other
Jasmine. And you've just been pushing the idea that maybe my marrying
Tyler isn't such a hot thing to look forward to. But if Lise is going to
be the same kid, she's got to be his -- which means either I have yet
another reason to be "stuck" with Tyler or else there will be yet another
major change in her upbringing, namely unmarried parents. Heck, even as
little as I saw of the kid, there are several things I'd like to teach *my*
daughter differently. If she doesn't even act the same, is she the same
child? With all those changes, assuring identical "hardware" seems only
slightly more important than giving her the same name as far as having any
real effect.
> Sorry, Professor. Didn't mean to suggest you were too "normal"
or
> something.
I was kidding.
> It's just that this particular weird is weird in a way that would be
likely
> to push the conservative buttons in someone like Vincent . . . and the
> "protective" buttons in someone like Tyler, my dad, or you. So I've been
> keeping it to myself.
Understandable. There are many things that I have not told people ... even
things that I have not told you.
> But this is all wishful thinking right now, anyway, and even if I did
> implement it, it wouldn't happen for decades (or possibly even centuries).
> And you just might be able to help out, especially with your ideas about
> organic computers. So why not? Just remember, if you start to find this
> creepy or dangerous rather than merely scientifically intriguing . . .
just
> go listen to that music of yours or something until you can appreciate it
> properly.
I find it Scientifically Intruiging. I also find it dangerous, creepy, and
very likely to be futile. However, I will not stop you if that is truly
your desire. I will merely explain my point of view (below).
> You remember I told you I get antsy when there's knowledge to be had, and
I
> don't have it? Well, I don't just mean that for little things, like your
> lab notes or Tyler's mating habits. I want to know *everything*, Kerry,
or
> at least everything that's knowable. How many stars are in the sky? What
> happened before the dawn of time? How many externalized manifestations of
> Ivan's libido can dance on the head of a pin?
Your project may not be possible for a number of reasons.
The first problem I see is that you are pursuing data, not information. So
you know how many angels can dance on a pin. What does that do for you?
Does anybody, including you, really CARE how many? At the end of a day,
it's just a number.
To me, research and investigation is an ends unto itself. It doesn't really
matter WHAT I research -- as long as the subject matter is something that I
care about, then I am happy. Nor, at the end of the day, do the particular
numbers mean anything more than what I want them to mean. What's important
is that I had fun finding out.
A second problem is that you may very well find what you seek ... you know
everything that's knowable. And what then? If there are a finite amount of
things that are knowable, what do you do for an encore? Just roll over and
die? Wipe out the entire universe on a whim, or with a thought that you
immediately regret? Perhaps knowing how to obliterate the universe is
knowable ... but the knowledge of its re-creation is not. Consider that
infinite knowledge does not imply infinite wisdom ... nor infinite
competence.
A third problem is that you may not find what you seek, yet pursue it
obsessively regardless. If there are an infinite number of things that are
knowable then your goal would be unattainable. Worse yet, remember what I
said before about the researcher influencing the results? Not only may
your goal may be unattainable ... it may actually be completely meaningless.
I am not attempting to disparage your pursuit of knowledge, just as I
believe that you did not mean to belittle the importance of my "lab notes".
Indeed, the scale of your curiosity is rather heartening ... not to mention
shocking, attractive, frightening, and several other adjectives both
positive and negative. However, I would hate to see it develop into develop
into full-blown obsession. So, yes, it has triggered my protective instinct
... but perhaps not in the manner you imagined.
> Now obviously, my current hardware is not suited for such investigations.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. If you look at the physical form of our bodies, and
especially if you buy into the technocratic paradigm a bit too much, then
you might imagine limits that do not exist. Life, I believe, is fundamental
to the universe. You have Matter, which is substance. You have Energy,
which is impetus. And you have Life, which typifies everything else ...
Perception, Emotion, Creativity, Imagination ... and most importantly for
your quest, Adaptation.
It may well be that your "hardware" would adapt *itself* to fulfill your
needs. If only you took an active role in understanding it enough to cause
that.
> You've already pointed out that my brain can match the speed
> advantages of most computers, and I assume you'll want to study that for
> use in your brain-computers. It should be no problem, then, to re-apply
> any later improvements to speed, memory, processor capacity, or whatever
to
> the original *human* brain, specifically mine.
I see no problem with this. As long as you do not *downgrade* the more
important features in the process: Humanity, Emotion, Imagination, etc. It
would be like you upgrading your PC in these areas ... and removing its
ability to perform binary arithmetic (the nearest equivalent). Sure, it's
faster, has more memory, etc ... but that stuff is useless if it doesn't do
what it should be doing.
> Ultimately, though, I've got to go further than that. I know from
> Correspondence training that space is just a perceptual convention -- a
> graphical interface between us and the universe. I assume time is the
same
> way. Right now, I can push the limits of the interface with my gear, but
> the ultimate problem is the body itself.
The leap that you make here is interesting. Space and Time may very well be
conventions between us and the universe (not that I'd know) ... but to apply
the same concept to your body, when even Time is merely an assumption on
your part, is amusing at best, and dangerous at worst.
Besides, how do you know that the ultimate problem is the body? Have you
pursued investigations into biological limits that I am not aware of? I had
understood that you had some form of mental block or simple lack of interest
in learning to actively use the principles of biology (incidentally, do try
to keep in mind that learning *everything* should rightly include all of
that biological stuff that you don't seem to care much for).
> On the great computer of reality,
> I may be using a keyboard where most people are stuck with just a mouse,
> but what I'm looking for is the equivalent of a direct neural hookup. No
> peripherals and no interface getting in the way. Just my mind, and the
> Code. The purity of raw intellect. That's the immortality I want, more
> than an unaging body or an upload into some constructed reality.
You seem to miss one possibility that leaps to my mind almost instantly.
How do you know that the "great computer of reality" is *not* the body?
Perhaps *we* are the computer. As I said, in my view there is form and
impetus ... and everything else arises from living beings. To my mind,
mind, body (or rather, Protoculture ... the essence of life itself), and
spirit should not be separated. They may, in fact, be inseperable. Or even
the same thing.
> Heh. I think that may be the first time I've actually put it into words,
> even to myself. For as long as I can remember, it's just been there in my
> head, getting stronger every time I ran into another question I couldn't
> answer.
Being your first time putting it into words, I can see why you did not
pursue some aspects as much as you might have otherwise. As for ths feeling
getting stronger, perhaps you have grown to like the pursuit ... and
mistakenly decided that you desire the goal. It is a common mistake in
life, I gather. As they say, getting there is half the fun. In the long
term, it may well be ALL of the fun.
> Maybe it's because of where I was born. I don't actually even
> know if the place had a name, but it wasn't on Earth. If this spacetime
is
> the universe's graphical interface, that was the command line. Those math
> tricks I can do? There, they were as natural and necessary as breathing.
> Before I even really knew I *had* a physical body, my mind was already
> making itself at home in *that* place -- and I think it's always missed
it.
I see. Of course, the alternative way to view this is that you were in a
place where math was fundamental and as natural as breathing ... but it was
actually rather independent of this spacetime. A different universe
entirely, so to speak. Or one of those constructed realities that you
mentioned before, made to seem as though it operated on a more fundamental
level, but still running "above".
> Your discussion of chemical vs. intellectual emotion has reminded me that
> some of the body's contributions may not be entirely expendable. If I
ever
> get to the point of actually working on this plan, I may have to figure
out
> a way around that. Then again, maybe I've just gotten used to the
> aesthetics of this particular "peripheral," and things like the rush of
> adrenaline are really as unimportant to the REAL experience of existing
as,
> say, the traditional arrangement of the keyboard is to computing.
It's entirely possible to simply exist now. Why do you think that being at
a more basic level would make it more interesting? Don't you think it might
instead get infinitely more tedious and mind-numbing? Sort of the
equivalent of knowing the daily routine of everybody on the planet, all of
the time...only moreso.
> Oh, I agree. Now that I've met her, weird circumstances or not, Lise is
> just as real as anyone else I know, and the idea of doing something to
> *prevent* her existence gives me a really creepy feeling. But even if we
> did arrange for her to be genetically the same child, there'd still be the
> same problem as with your Caitlin replacement: there's no way she'll
> actually have the same experiences in life as the Lise I met.
Actually, that's not quite so certain.
> I certainly
> hope she'll be born later, and that I'll be a better mother than that
other
> Jasmine. And you've just been pushing the idea that maybe my marrying
> Tyler isn't such a hot thing to look forward to. But if Lise is going to
> be the same kid, she's got to be his -- which means either I have yet
> another reason to be "stuck" with Tyler or else there will be yet another
> major change in her upbringing, namely unmarried parents.
Assuming that you are certain of her parentage. Not that I'm implying
anything by that. I simply don't know how much information you have on the
subject, and I was not with you to gain my own.
> Heck, even as
> little as I saw of the kid, there are several things I'd like to teach
*my*
> daughter differently. If she doesn't even act the same, is she the same
> child? With all those changes, assuring identical "hardware" seems only
> slightly more important than giving her the same name as far as having any
> real effect.
Perhaps. Perhaps it is very important. I would need to perform research in
that area before deciding.
K.
(OOC: Argh, I want to finish up the Corinna thing.)
>Understandable. There are many things that I have not told people
... even
>things that I have not told you.
Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. . . .
I thought that, being a Scientist and all, you'd easily be able to derive
Jasmine Rule #1 from the information you have so far.
Here, let me lay it out for you:
What you know so far: If I know *about* something I don't know, then I am
filled with a burning desire to know it.
The rule easily derived therefrom: Don't tell me about something you
*haven't* told me, unless you want me to bug you to death for the rest of
your life trying to find out what it is.
See, now you've gone and done it. . . .
>The first problem I see is that you are pursuing data, not information. So
>you know how many angels can dance on a pin. What does that do for you?
>Does anybody, including you, really CARE how many? At the end of a day,
>it's just a number.
Well, give me *some* credit. I don't mean to be just a data-gathering
machine. (I can *build* those.) Of course I'll be analyzing and
interpreting the raw data I gather, and perhaps even applying it in some
useful way. Even a seemingly useless bit of knowledge such as the old
angels/pins ratio presumably tells us something about angels, pins, or both
that could lead to other questions.
>To me, research and investigation is an ends unto itself. It doesn't
really
>matter WHAT I research -- as long as the subject matter is something that I
>care about, then I am happy. Nor, at the end of the day, do the particular
>numbers mean anything more than what I want them to mean. What's important
>is that I had fun finding out.
Well, if the numbers *really* don't mean anything, than you didn't really
"find out" anything, did you? You could have just written down whatever
you wanted.
True, there's pleasure just in finding out, and that's mainly what I'm
after. But at least some of that pleasure comes from setting a goal and
striving to reach it. If the goal is meaningless, what's the point?
>A second problem is that you may very well find what you seek ... you know
>everything that's knowable. And what then? If there are a finite amount
of
>things that are knowable, what do you do for an encore? Just roll over and
>die?
Share the knowledge. Or use it, to do things. Possibly even use it to
make brand-new things, previously unknown, that only I know enough to make.
Sheesh, Kerry. How am I supposed to know what to do with omniscience when
I don't have it yet?
Wipe out the entire universe on a whim, or with a thought that you
>immediately regret? Perhaps knowing how to obliterate the universe is
>knowable ... but the knowledge of its re-creation is not. Consider that
>infinite knowledge does not imply infinite wisdom ... nor infinite
>competence.
All right, that's troubling. But still highly speculative.
And you're reducing knowledge to "data" again. If I've really plumbed the
depths of every use and interrelation of *everything*, I'd probably be
fairly competent as well as knowledgeable. And if I've studied every
decision ever made by a sapient mind, and its consequences (possibly along
multiple parallel timestreams), then I ought to be doing pretty well in the
wisdom department, too.
>A third problem is that you may not find what you seek, yet pursue it
>obsessively regardless. If there are an infinite number of things that are
>knowable then your goal would be unattainable.
But fun. Thought you said that was important.
And that would counter the previous problem. There would always be new
things to learn.
'Course, I would always be frustrated at not knowing *everything*. But
that's true already.
Worse yet, remember what I
>said before about the researcher influencing the results? Not only may
>your goal may be unattainable ... it may actually be completely
meaningless.
I can't believe that, Kerry. There has to be something *there*, or what's
the point? If it's just me and the stuff I make up, there's no wondering
or investigating or finding out at all -- there's just making more stuff up
as I think about it. How can *you* stand to think about a world like that?
>I am not attempting to disparage your pursuit of knowledge, just as I
>believe that you did not mean to belittle the importance of my "lab notes".
Huh? Oh, no. I was just saying that I could easily find out what's in
your lab notes, as compared to something like "What it's like to be an
electron."
>Indeed, the scale of your curiosity is rather heartening ... not to mention
>shocking, attractive, frightening, and several other adjectives both
>positive and negative.
Heh. I suppose that's fair.
> However, I would hate to see it develop into full-
>blown obsession. So, yes, it has triggered my protective instinct ... but
>perhaps not in the manner you imagined.
Well, I won't even seriously be thinking about it until I get all those
other worries -- puberty, dating, marriage, kids, career, changing the
world -- out of the way. Like I said, could be decades or even centuries.
Hardly qualifies as an obsession, I'd think. At least, not now.
>> Now obviously, my current hardware is not suited for such investigations.
>
>Perhaps. Perhaps not. If you look at the physical form of our bodies, and
>especially if you buy into the technocratic paradigm a bit too much, then
>you might imagine limits that do not exist. Life, I believe, is
fundamental
>to the universe. You have Matter, which is substance. You have Energy,
>which is impetus. And you have Life, which typifies everything else ...
>Perception, Emotion, Creativity, Imagination ... and most importantly for
>your quest, Adaptation.
Well, yes, if you expand "the body" to include all those things, than
certainly I'll still need it. I was talking about the thing that seems to
be hardwired to interact with the conventions of space and time.
I suppose, if space is an illusion, the limits of the body must be one,
too. It may be that "I" am already bigger than I imagine, if I could just
get past the limitations of the interface. That'd be fine by me, too.
>It may well be that your "hardware" would adapt *itself* to fulfill your
>needs. If only you took an active role in understanding it enough to cause
>that.
Hmm. How so?
>I see no problem with this. As long as you do not *downgrade* the more
>important features in the process: Humanity, Emotion, Imagination, etc. It
>would be like you upgrading your PC in these areas ... and removing its
>ability to perform binary arithmetic (the nearest equivalent). Sure, it's
>faster, has more memory, etc ... but that stuff is useless if it doesn't do
>what it should be doing.
Duhhh. I do want to get *better*, you know. That means gaining features
without losing any that were there before.
>The leap that you make here is interesting. Space and Time may very well
be
>conventions between us and the universe (not that I'd know) ... but to
apply
>the same concept to your body, when even Time is merely an assumption on
>your part, is amusing at best, and dangerous at worst.
I don't see the problem. My body isn't *me*, after all. It's hardware.