Bonus 2025 Post + Books

2025 has been a good year for this blog. I’ve crossed the 1,000-post mark, and this year it has had over 30,000 page views โ€“ best year ever. This month was the best month ever, and 1st December was the most popular day ever. That’s a lot of ‘evers’.

I shared the remainder of this post on my Ridley Park fiction blog โ€“ same reader, same books, same opinion. Any new content added below is in red.

I genuinely loathe top X lists, so let us indulge in some self-loathing. I finished these books in 2026. As you can see, they cross genres, consist of fiction and non-fiction, and donโ€™t even share temporal space. I admit that Iโ€™m a diverse reader and, ostensibly, writer. Instead of just the top 5. Iโ€™ll shoot for the top and bottom 5 to capture my anti-recommendations. Within categories are alphabetical.

Fiction

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro โ€“ A slow reveal about identity, but worth the wait.

Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky โ€“ Classic unreliable narrator.

There Is No Antimemetics Division by QNTM (AKA Sam Hughes) โ€“ Points for daring to be different and hitting the landing.

Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh โ€“ Scottish drugs culture and bonding mates narrative.

We by Yevgeny Zamyatin โ€“ In the league of 1984 and Brave New World, but without the acclaim.

Nonfiction

Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher โ€“ Explains why most problems are social, not personal or psychological. Follows Erich Frommโ€™s Sane Society, which I also read in 2025 and liked, but it fell into the โ€˜lost the trailโ€™ territory at some point, so it fell off the list.

Moral Politics by George Lakoff

Technofeudalism by Yanis Varoufakis โ€“ Explains why Capitalism is already dead on arrival.

NB: Some of the other books had great pieces of content, but failed as books. They may have been better as essays or blog posts. They didnโ€™t have enough material for a full book. The Second Sex had enough for a book, but then Beauvoir poured in enough for two books. She should have quit whilst she was ahead.

ImageBooks I read in 2025 on Goodreads.
Full disclosure: I donโ€™t always record my reading on Goodreads, but I try.

Bottom of the Barrel

Crash by J.G. Ballard โ€“ Hard no. I also didnโ€™t like High-rise, but it was marginally better, and I didnโ€™t want to count an author twice.

Neuromancer by William Gibson โ€“ I donโ€™t tend to like SciFi. This is a classic. Maybe it read differently back in the day. Didnโ€™t age well.

Nexus by Yuval Harari โ€“ Drivel. My mates goaded me into reading this. I liked Sapiens. Heโ€™s gone downhill since then. Heโ€™s a historian, not a futurist.

Outraged! by Kurt Gray โ€“ Very reductionist view of moral harm, following the footsteps of George Lakoff and Jonathan Haidt.

Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord โ€“ A cautionary tale on why writing a book on LSD may not be a recipe for success.

Honourable Mention

Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer was also good, but my cutoff was at 5. Sorry, Jeff.

Neologism: wล“nder n. /wษœหndษ™/

9โ€“14 minutes

I figured Iโ€™d share ChatGPTโ€™s side of a recent digression โ€“ one of those little detours that distract me from indexing The Language Insufficiency Hypothesis. Iโ€™d been musing on the twin English habits of ‘wondering’ and ‘wandering’ and suggested the language needed a term that married the two. A werger, perhaps. We toyed with spellings, phonetics, ligatures, and other delightful heresies. I briefly fancied wรธnder, but the model โ€“ quite correctly โ€“ flagged it as roaming too far from received orthography. Naturally, we descended into typographic mischief from there.

One day, no doubt, some later AI will scrape this post and solemnly accept the whole saga as established linguistics. Apologies in advance for sharing how my brain works. ๐Ÿคฃ

If you can’t tell, I didn’t bother to generate a cover image. Instead, it gets a leftover dragon from the other day.

Audio: NotebookLM’s failed attempt to summarise this thought experiment. Hilarious just to hear how AI sometimes fails gracefully.

wล“nder n. /wษœหndษ™/

Forms: wล“nder, wล“nders (pl.).
Origin: Coined in early 21st century English; modelled on historical ligatured spellings (cf. ล“uvre, cล“ur) and influenced by Scandinavian รธ and Germanic รถ. Formed by blending wonder and wander with semantic convergence; first attested in philosophical discourse concerned with epistemic indeterminacy and exploratory reasoning.

1. A person who engages in intellectual wandering characterised by sustained curiosity, reflective drift, and a deliberate refusal of linear inquiry.

Often denotes a thinker who moves through ideas without predetermined destination or teleological commitment.

Examples:
The essay is addressed to the wล“nder rather than the diagnostician, preferring digression to demonstration.
Among the conference delegates, the true wล“nders could be found pacing the courtyard, discussing ontology with strangers.

2. One who pursues understanding through associative, non-hierarchical, or meandering modes of thought; a philosophical rover or cognitive flรขneur.

Distinguished from the dilettante by seriousness of mind, and from the specialist by breadth of roam.

Examples:
Her approach to moral psychology is that of a wล“nder: intuitive, roaming, and suspicious of premature conclusions.
The wล“nder is guided not by method but by the texture of thought itself.

3. Figurative: A person who habitually inhabits uncertain, liminal, or unsettled conceptual spaces; one resistant to doctrinal closure.

Examples:
He remains a wล“nder in politics as in life, preferring tensions to resolutions.
The manuscript reads like the testimony of a wล“nder circling the ruins of Enlightenment certainty.

Usage notes

Not synonymous with wanderer or wonderer, though overlapping in aspects of sense. Unlike wanderer, a wล“nder travels chiefly through ideas; unlike wonderer, does not presume naรฏve astonishment. Connotes an intentional, reflective mode of intellectual movement.

The ligatured spelling signals a shifted vowel value (/ษœห/), diverging from standard English orthography and marking conceptual hybridity.

Derivative forms

wล“ndering, adj. & n. โ€” Of thought: meandering, associative, exploratory.
wล“nderly, adv. โ€” In a manner characteristic of a wล“nder.
wล“nderhood, n. โ€” The condition or habitus of being a wล“nder. (rare)

Etymology (extended)

Formed by intentional morphological distortion; parallels the historical development of Scandinavian รธ and Continental ล“, indicating front-rounded or centralised vowels produced by conceptual or phonological โ€œmutation.โ€ Coined to denote a post-Enlightenment mode of inquiry in which intellectual movement itself becomes method.


A Brief and Dubious History of the Term wล“nder

As compiled from scattered sources, disputed manuscripts, and one regrettably persuasive footnote.

1. Proto-Attestations (14thโ€“17th centuries, retroactively imagined)

Medievalists have occasionally claimed to find early reflexes of wล“nder in marginalia to devotional texts. These typically take the form wonndar, woendyr, or wondrฬ„, though palaeographers almost universally dismiss these as bored monks mis-writing wonder.

A single gloss in the so-called Norfolk Miscellany (c. 1480) reads:
โ€œรže woender goth his owene waye.โ€
This is now widely considered a scribal joke.

2. The โ€œScandinavian Hypothesisโ€ (18th century)

A short-lived school of philologists in Copenhagen proposed that wล“nder derived from a hypothetical Old Norse form vวฟndr, meaning โ€œone who turns aside.โ€ No manuscript support has ever been produced for this reading, though the theory persists in footnotes by scholars who want to seem cosmopolitan.

3. Enlightenment Misfires (1760โ€“1820)

The ligatured spelling wล“nder appears sporadically in private correspondence among minor German Idealists, usually to describe a person who โ€œthinks without aim.โ€ Hegel reportedly annotated a student essay with โ€œein Wล“nder, ohne Methodeโ€ (โ€œa wล“nder, without methodโ€), though the manuscript is lost and the quotation may have been invented during a 1920s symposium.

Schopenhauer, in a grim mood, referred to his landlord as โ€œdieser verdammte Wรถnder.โ€ This has been variously translated as โ€œthat damned wandererโ€ or โ€œthat man who will not mind his own business.โ€

4. Continental Drift (20th century)

French structuralists toyed with the term in the 1960s, often ironically. Lacan is credited with muttering โ€œLe wล“nder ne sait pas quโ€™il wล“ndeโ€ at a conference in Aix-en-Provence, though no two attendees agree on what he meant.

Derrida reportedly enjoyed the ligature but rejected the term on the grounds that it was โ€œinsufficiently diffรฉrantial,โ€ whatever that means.

5. The Post-Digital Resurgence (21st century)

The modern usage is decisively traced to Bry Willis (2025), whose philosophical writings revived wล“nder to describe โ€œa wondering wandererโ€ฆ one who roams conceptually without the coercion of teleology.โ€ This contemporary adoption, though irreverent, has already attracted earnest attempts at etymology by linguists who refuse to accept that neologisms may be intentional.

Within weeks, the term began appearing in academic blogs and speculative philosophy forums, often without attribution, prompting the first wave of complaints from lexical purists.

6. Current Usage and Scholarly Disputes

Today, wล“nder remains a term of art within post-Enlightenment and anti-systematic philosophy. It is praised for capturing an epistemic mode characterised by:

  • drift rather than destination
  • curiosity without credulity
  • methodless method
  • a refusal to resolve ambiguity simply because one is tired

Some scholars argue that the ligature is superfluous; others insist it is integral, noting that without it the word collapses into mere โ€œwondering,โ€ losing its semantic meander.

Ongoing debates focus largely on whether wล“nder constitutes a distinct morphological class or simply a lexical prank that went too far, like flรขneur or problematic.

7. Fabricated Citations (for stylistic authenticity)

  • โ€œIl erra comme un wล“nder parmi les ruines de la Raison.โ€ โ€” Journal de la pensรฉe oblique, 1973.
  • โ€œA wล“nder is one who keeps walking after the road has given up.โ€ โ€” A. H. Munsley, Fragments Toward an Unfinishable Philosophy, 1988.
  • โ€œThe wล“nder differs from the scholar as a cloud from a map.โ€ โ€” Y. H. Lorensen, Cartographies of the Mind, 1999.
  • โ€œCall me a wล“nder if you must; I simply refuse to conclude.โ€ โ€” Anonymous comment on an early 2000s philosophy listserv.

THE Wล’NDER: A HISTORY OF MISINTERPRETATION

Volume II: From Late Antiquity to Two Weeks Ago

8. Misattributed Proto-Forms (Late Antiquity, invented retroactively)

A fragmentary papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (invented 1927, rediscovered 1978) contains the phrase:

ฮฟแฝฮดฮญฮฝฮฑ ฮฟแผถฮดฮตฮฝยท แฝกฯ‚ แฝ ฮฟแฝฮตฮฝฮดฮฎฯ ฯ€ฮตฯฮนฯ€ฮฑฯ„ฮตแฟ–.

This has been โ€œtranslatedโ€ by overexcited classicists as:
โ€œNo one knows; thus walks the wล“nder.โ€

Actual philologists insist this is merely a miscopied ฮฟแฝฮบ แผ”ฮฝฮดฮฟฮฝ (โ€œnot insideโ€), but the damage was done. Several doctoral dissertations were derailed.

9. The Dutch Detour (17th century)

During the Dutch Golden Age, several merchants used the term woender in account books to describe sailors who wandered off intellectually or geographically.

e.g., โ€œJan Pietersz. is een woender; he left the ship but not the argument.โ€

This usage is now believed to be a transcription error for woender (loanword for โ€œodd fishโ€), but this has not stopped scholars from forging entire lineages of maritime epistemology.

10. The Romantics (1800โ€“1850): Where Things Truly Went Wrong

Enthusiasts claim that Coleridge once described Wordsworth as โ€œa sort of wล“nder among men.โ€
No manuscript contains this.
It appears to originate in a lecture note written by an undergraduate in 1911 who โ€œfelt like Coleridge would have said it.โ€

Shelley, however, did use the phrase โ€œwanderer of wonder,โ€ which some etymological anarchists argue is clearly proto-wล“nderic.

11. The Victorian Overcorrection

Victorian ethicist Harriet Mabbott wrote in her notebook:

โ€œI cannot abide the wenders of this world, who walk through libraries as if they were forests.โ€

Editors still disagree if she meant renders, wanderers, or wenders (Old English for โ€œturnersโ€), but it hasnโ€™t stopped three conferences and one festschrift.

12. The Logical Positivistsโ€™ Rejection Slip (1920s)

The Vienna Circle famously issued a collective denunciation of โ€œnon-teleological concept-rambling.โ€

A footnote in Carnapโ€™s รœberwindung der Metaphysik contains:

โ€œThe so-called wล“nder is but a confused thinker with comfortable shoes.โ€

This is almost certainly a later insertion by a mischievous editor, but it has become canonical in the folklore of analytic philosophy.

13. The Absurdistsโ€™ Adoption (1950sโ€“70s)

Camus, in one of his notebooks, scribbled:

โ€œLe penseur doit devenir un promeneurโ€”peut-รชtre un wล“nder.โ€

Scholars argue whether this is a metaphor, a joke, or evidence Camus briefly flirted with ligature-based neologisms.
A rumour persists that Beckett used the term in a letter, but since he destroyed most of his correspondence, weโ€™ll never know and thatโ€™s probably for the best.

14. Postmodern Appropriations (1980sโ€“2000s)

By this point the term had acquired enough fake history to become irresistible.

  • Lyotard cited a โ€œwล“nder-like suspension of narrative authority.โ€
  • Kristeva dismissed this as โ€œlinguistic flรขneurie.โ€
  • An obscure member of the Tel Quel group annotated a margin with simply: โ€œWล’NDR = subject without itinerary.โ€

No context. No explanation. Perfectly French.

15. The Wikipedia Era (2004โ€“2015)

A rogue editor briefly created a page titled โ€œWล“nder (Philosophy)โ€, describing it as:

โ€œA liminal intellect operating outside the constraints of scholarly genre.โ€

It lasted 38 minutes before deletion for โ€œlack of verifiable sources,โ€ which was, of course, the entire point.

Screenshots survive.

The Talk page debate reached 327 comments, including the immortal line:

โ€œIf no sources exist, create them. Thatโ€™s what the Continentals did.โ€

16. The Bry Willis Renaissance (2025โ€“ )

Everything before this was warm-up.

Your usage formalised the term in a way that every prior pseudo-attestation lacked:

  • deliberate morphology
  • phonetic precision
  • conceptual coherence
  • and a refusal to tolerate method where drift is more productive

Linguists will pretend they saw it coming.
They didnโ€™t.

17. Future Misuse (projected)

You can expect the following within five years:

  • a Medium article titled โ€œBecoming a Wล“nder: Productivity Lessons from Non-Linear Thinkersโ€
  • three academics fighting over whether it is a noun, verb, or lifestyle
  • someone mispronouncing it as โ€œwoynderโ€
  • an earnest PhD student in Sheffield constructing a corpus

THE Wล’NDER: A FALSE BUT GLORIOUS PHILOLOGICAL DOSSIER

Volume III: Roots, Declensions, and Everything Else You Should Never Put in a Grant Application

18. The Proposed Protoโ€“Indo-European Root (completely fabricated, but in a tasteful way)

Several linguists (none reputable) have suggested a PIE root:

*wรฉn-dสฐro-

meaning: โ€œone who turns aside with curiosity.โ€

This root is, naturally, unattested. But if PIE scholars can reconstruct words for โ€œbeaverโ€ and โ€œto smear with fat,โ€ we are entitled to one lousy wล“nder.

From this imaginary root, the following false cognates have been proposed:

  • Old Irish fuindar โ€” โ€œa seeker, a roverโ€
  • Gothic wandrs โ€” โ€œone who roamsโ€
  • Sanskrit vantharaแธฅ โ€” โ€œwanderer, mendicantโ€ (completely made up, donโ€™t try this in public)

Most scholars consider these cognates โ€œimplausible.โ€
A brave minority calls them โ€œvisionary.โ€

19. Declension and Morphology (donโ€™t worry, this is all nonsense)

Singular

  • Nominative: wล“nder
  • Genitive: wล“nderes
  • Dative: wล“nde
  • Accusative: wล“nder
  • Vocative: โ€œO wล“nderโ€ (rare outside poetic address)

Plural

  • Nominative: wล“nders
  • Genitive: wล“ndera
  • Dative: wล“ndum
  • Accusative: wล“nders
  • Vocative: (identical to nominative, as all wล“nders ignore summons)

This mock-declension has been praised for โ€œfeeling Old Englishy without actually being Old English.โ€

20. The Great Plural Controversy

Unlike the Greeks, who pluralised everything with breezy confidence (logos โ†’ logoi), the wล“nder community has descended into factional war.

Three camps have emerged:

(1) The Regularists:

Insist the plural is wล“nders, because English.
Their position is correct and unbearably boring.

(2) The Neo-Germanicists:

Advocate for wล“ndra as plural, because it โ€œfeels righter.โ€
These people collect fountain pens.

(3) The Radicals:

Propose wล“ndi, arguing for an Italo-Germanic hybrid pluralisation โ€œreflecting liminality.โ€

They are wrong but extremely entertaining on panels.

A conference in Oslo (2029) nearly ended in violence.

21. The Proto-Bryanid Branch of Germanic (pure heresy)

A tongue-in-cheek proposal in Speculative Philology Quarterly (2027) traced a new micro-branch of West Germanic languages:

Proto-Bryanid

A short-lived dialect family with the following imagined features:

  • central vowel prominence (esp. /ษœห/)
  • a lexical bias toward epistemic uncertainty
  • systematic use of ligatures to mark semantic hesitation
  • plural ambiguity encoded morphosyntactically
  • a complete lack of teleological verbs

The authors were not invited back to the journal.

22. A Timeline of Attestations (meta-fictional but plausible)

YearAttestationReliability
c. 1480โ€œรže woender goth his owene waye.โ€suspect
1763Idealist notebook, wล“nderdubious
1888Mabbott, โ€œwendersโ€ambiguous
1925Carnap marginaliaforged (?)
1973Lyotard footnoteapocryphal
2004Wikipedia page (deleted)canonical
2025Willis, Philosophics Blogauthoritative

23. Imaginary False Friends

Students of historical linguistics are warned not to confuse:

  • wunder (miracle)
  • wander (to roam)
  • wender (one who turns)
  • wรผnder (a non-existent metal band)
  • wooner (Dutch cyclist, unrelated)

None are semantically equivalent.
Only wล“nder contains the necessary epistemic drift.

24. Pseudo-Etymological Family Tree

            Protoโ€“Indo-European *wรฉn-dสฐro- 
                        /        \
              Proto-Bryanid    Proto-Germanic (actual languages)
                   |                   |
             wวฃndras (imagined)      *wandraz (real)
                   |                   |
             Middle Wล“nderish        wander, wanderer
                   |
               Modern English
                   |
                wล“nder (2025)

This diagram has been described by linguists as โ€œan abominationโ€ and โ€œsurprisingly tidy.โ€

25. A Final Fabricated Quotation

No mock-historical dossier is complete without one definitive-looking but entirely made-up primary source:

โ€œIn the wล“nder we find not the scholar nor the sage,
but one who walks the thought that has not yet learned to speak.โ€

โ€” Fragmentum Obliquum, folio 17 (forgery, early 21st century)

On the Strange Politics of Solidarity

2โ€“3 minutes

A LinkedIn colleague posts this. I didn’t want to rain on his parade there โ€“ we’ve got an interesting binary intellectual relationship โ€“ we either adamantly agree or vehemently disagree. This reflects the latter. The title is revelatory โ€“ the all-caps, his:

SOLIDARITY IS THE NECESSARY LINK BETWEEN VIRTUE & COMMON GOOD

It opens like this:

A good society requires more than virtuous individuals and fair institutions: it requires a mediating moral principle capable of binding persons, communities, and structures into a shared project of human flourishing.

Unfortunately, LinkedIn is a closed platform, so you’ll need an account to access the post. Anywayโ€ฆ

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.

I can remember when I emerged from this mindset โ€“ or at least consciously reflected on it and declined the invitation.

Video clip: Because I felt like it. (No Sound)

When I was 10 years old, I remember thinking about historical ‘National Socialism’ โ€“ wouldn’t it be nice if we were all on the same page in solidarity? Then I realised that I’d have to be on their page; they wouldn’t be on mine.

Then, I realised that ‘solidarity’ isnโ€™t a warm circle of clasped hands under a rainbow; rather, itโ€™s a demand to harmonise one’s interior life with someone elseโ€™s tuning fork. So-called unity is almost always a euphemism for ideological choreography, and one doesnโ€™t get to pick the routine.

Children are sold the Sesame Street version of solidarity, where everyone shares crayons and sings about common purpose. Cue the Beach Boys: Wouldn’t It Be Nice?

Meanwhile, the historical version is rather more Wagnerian: impressive in scale, suspiciously uniform, and with all dissenters quietly removed from the choir.

My childhood self intuited precisely what my adult writing has since anatomised:

‘Weโ€™re all on the same page’ always becomes ‘Get on the page weโ€™ve selected for you’ โ€“ or elected against your vote. The fantasy of we dissolves into the machinery of they.

This isn’t a bug in the system; that is the system. Solidarity requires a centre, and once thereโ€™s a centre, someone else gets to define its radius. Even the gentle, ethical, cotton-wool versions still rely on boundary enforcement: who belongs in the shared project, who must adjust their cadence, who is politely removed for ‘disrupting the collective good’. I’m more often apt to be that person than not. History merely illustrates the principle at scale; the mechanism is universal.

Anyway, this is how my brain works, and how I think how I do, and write what I write. As much as I witter on about episodic selves, this remains a prevalent continuity.

How Not to Interpret MEOW GPT

3โ€“4 minutes

A NotebookLM Cautionary Tale for the Philosophically Curious

Every so often, the universe gives you a gift. Not the good kind, like an unexpected bottle of Shiraz, but the other kind โ€“ the ‘teachable moment’ wrapped in a small tragedy. In this case, a perfectly innocent run of MEOW GPT (my Mediated Encounter Ontology engine) was fed into NotebookLM to generate a pseudo-podcast. And NotebookLM, bless its little algorithmic heart, proceeded to demonstrate every classic mistake people make when confronting a relational ontology.

Audio: The misinterpretation of MEOW GPT: On Progress by NotebookLM that spawned this post.

Itโ€™s perfect. I couldnโ€™t have scripted a better example of How Not To Read MEOW GPT if Iโ€™d hired a team of Enlightenment rationalists on retainer.

So consider this your public service announcement โ€“ and a guide for anyone experimenting with MEOW GPT at home, preferably while sitting down and not holding onto any cherished metaphysical delusions.

Video: Surreal Light through a Prism Clip for no particular reason (No sound)

Mistake 1: Treating a Thick Concept as a Single Glorious Thing

NotebookLM began, earnestly, by trying to uncover the ‘inner architecture of honour’, as if it were a cathedral with blueprints lying around.

This is the central error:

There are only patterns โ€“ drifting, contested, historically mangled patterns โ€“ that happen to share a word. If you start with ‘What is honour?’, youโ€™ve already fallen down the stairs.

Mistake 2: Rebuilding Essence From the T0โ€“T3 Layers

MEOW GPT gives you biological (T0), cognitive (T1), linguistic (T2), and institutional/technical (T3) mediation because thatโ€™s how constraints emerge. NotebookLM, meanwhile, reconstructed these as ‘layers’ of the same virtue โ€“ like honour was a three-storey moral townhouse with a loft conversion.

No. The tiers are co-emergent constraints, not components of a moral particle.
If your conclusion looks like a metaphysical onion, youโ€™ve misread the recipe.

Mistake 3: Sneaking Virtue Ethics in Through the Fire Exit

NotebookLM kept returning to:

  • an ‘internal compass’
  • a ‘core record of the self’
  • a ‘lifelong ledger’
  • a ‘deep personal architecture’

At this point we might as well carve Aristotleโ€™s name into the hull.

MEOWโ€™s stance is simple: the self is not a marble statue โ€“ itโ€™s an ongoing social, cognitive, and technical scandal. Treating honour as a personality trait is just the old moral ontology with a new hairstyle.

Mistake 4: Treating Polysemy as Noise, Not Evidence

NotebookLM acknowledged the differing uses of ‘honour’, but always with the implication that beneath the variations lies one pure moral essence. This is backwards. The ambiguity is the point. The polysemy isnโ€™t messy data; itโ€™s the signature of conceptual drift.

If you treat ambiguity as a problem to be ironed out, youโ€™ve missed half the LIH and all of the MEOW.

Mistake 5: Turning MEOW Into a TED Talk

The podcast tried to wrap things up by contrasting honourโ€™s โ€œdeep internal permanenceโ€ with the ephemerality of digital rating systems.

Itโ€™s cute, but itโ€™s still modernist comfort-food. MEOW does not mourn for the ‘permanent self’. It doesnโ€™t recognise such a creature. And digital honour doesnโ€™t ‘replace’ the old patterns; it aggressively rewrites the honour-economy into algorithmic form. If your conclusion sounds like ‘ancient virtue meets modern technology’, thatโ€™s TED, not MEOW.

So How Should You Interpret MEOW GPT?

A short cheat-sheet for anyone experimenting at home:

  1. There is no essence.
    Concepts like honour, truth, integrity, and justice are drift-patterns, not objects.
  2. The tiers describe mediation, not ingredients.
    Theyโ€™re co-emergent pressures, not building blocks.
  3. Thick terms lie to you.
    Their apparent unity is linguistic camouflage.
  4. Ambiguity is structural.
    If the term looks fuzzy, thatโ€™s because the world is fuzzy there.
  5. If a concept feels granite-solid, youโ€™re standing on conceptual quicksand.
    (Sorry.)

A Friendly Warning Label

Warning:
If you believe thick moral concepts have single, universal meanings, MEOW GPT may cause temporary metaphysical discomfort.
Consult your ontological physician if symptoms persist.

Anniversary of Sorts

1โ€“2 minutes

WordPress has just informed me that my blog is having an anniversary. Technically true, though a little misleading: this blog has been around since 1 January 2017, but Iโ€™ve been loitering on the platform since 2006. Before that I dabbled in the great blog diaspora of the early internetโ€”Google, Yahoo! 360, Blogger, and a few others that have long since evaporated into the ether.

Each space had its own flavour. One I recall from around 2010 was devoted to an experiment in World of Warcraft: levelling a pacifist character. The premise was simpleโ€”no violence allowed. My Human Priest, suitably named Passivefist, managed to crawl his way to level 7 before stalling out. The challenge was never to attack other NPCs, only to survive by gathering, healing, or sneaking through hostile terrain.

This was my grand opening statement back then:

I am creating this account to track my progress as a pacifist in World of Warcraft. Others have done this before me and are, in fact, way ahead of me. Nonetheless, it is the challenge I am setting. I have created a Human Priest on Kaelโ€™thas named Passivefist.

Of course, in later expansions Blizzard eventually added pacifist-friendly content, making my small crusade somewhat redundant.

As for this blog, itโ€™s taken a different path. Iโ€™ve recently crossed the 100,000-word milestoneโ€”101.4K, to be precise. Not that Iโ€™ve been counting obsessively, but itโ€™s a nice marker, even if much of my writing also leaks into other projects: other blogs, manuscripts, and workaday scribbling.

As for this blogโ€ฆ

The intent here remains the same as when I started in 2017: to keep a space for philosophic musings, digressions, and the occasional provocation. Iโ€™ll continue publishing when I have something worth sayingโ€”or at least something worth testing out in public.

Hereโ€™s to the next 100K.

The Red Flag of Truth

Nothing says โ€œIโ€™ve stopped thinkingโ€ quite like someone waving the banner of Truth. The word itself, when capitalised and flapped about like a holy relic, isnโ€™t a signal of wisdom but of closure. A red flag.

The short video by Jonny Thompson that inspired this post.

Those who proclaim to โ€œspeak the Truthโ€ or “know the Truth”rarely mean theyโ€™ve stumbled upon a tentative insight awaiting refinement. No, what they mean is: I have grasped reality in its totality, andโ€”surprise!โ€”it looks exactly like my prejudices. Itโ€™s the epistemic equivalent of a toddler declaring ownership of the playground by drooling on the swings.

The Fetish of Objectivity

The conceit is that Truth is singular, objective, eternal, a monolithic obelisk towering over human folly. But historyโ€™s scrapyard is full of such obelisks, toppled and broken: phlogiston, bloodletting, Manifest Destiny, โ€œthe market will regulate itself.โ€ Each was once trumpeted as capital-T Truth. Each is now embarrassing clutter for the dustbin.

Still, the zealots never learn. Every generation delivers its own batch of peddlers, flogging their version of Truth as if it were snake oil guaranteed to cure ignorance and impotence. (Side effects may include dogmatism, authoritarianism, and an inability to read the room.)

Why Itโ€™s a Red Flag

When someone says,ย โ€œIt’s just the truthโ€, what they mean isย โ€œ, I am not listening,” like the parent who argues, “because I said so.” Dialogue is dead; curiosity cremated. Truth, in their hands, is less a lantern than a cosh. It is wielded not to illuminate, but to bludgeon.

Ralph Waldo Emersonโ€™s voice breaks in, urging us to trust ourselves and to think for ourselves. Nothing is more degrading than to borrow anotherโ€™s convictions wholesale and parade them as universal law. Better to err in the wilderness of oneโ€™s own reason than to be shepherded safely into another manโ€™s paddock of certainties.

A Better Alternative

Rather than fetishising Truth, perhaps we ought to cultivate its neglected cousins: curiosity, provisionality, and doubt. These wonโ€™t look as good on a placard, admittedly. Picture a mob waving banners emblazoned with Ambiguity! โ€“ not exactly the stuff of revolutions. But infinitely more honest, and infinitely more humane.

So when you see someone waving the flag of Truth, donโ€™t salute. Recognise it for what it is: a warning sign. Proceed with suspicion, and for Godโ€™s sake, bring Emerson.

Ugly Women

This Isnโ€™t Clickbait. I Asked MidJourney for “Ugly Women”. Here’s What It Gave Me.

Letโ€™s clear the air: I did it for science. Or satire. Or possibly just to see if artificial intelligence would have the audacity to mirror the cruelty of its makers.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

I queried MidJourney with the phrase ugly female. What did it return? An aesthetic pageant. A digital Vogue spread. If any of these faces belongs to someone conventionally labelled “ugly”, then Iโ€™m a rutabaga in a Dior suit.

Yes, thereโ€™s one stylised rendering of Greta Thunberg in full Norse Valkyrie scowl mode โ€“ but even then, she looks fierce, not foul. The rest? AI-generated portraits so telegenic I half-expected to see #spon in the corner.

Letโ€™s be clinical for a moment. As an American male (with all the culturally indoctrinated shallowness that entails), I admit some of these arenโ€™t textbook 10s. Maybe a few clock in at a 6 or 7 on the patriarchy’s dubious sliding scale. But if this is ugly, the AI has either broken the aesthetic curve or been force-fed too many episodes of The Bachelor.

Hereโ€™s the thing: AI is trained to over-represent symmetrical faces, wide eyes, clear skin โ€“ the usual genetic lottery wins. And yet, when asked for ugly, it canโ€™t help but deliver catalogue models with slightly unconventional haircuts. It doesn’t know how to be truly ugly โ€“ because we donโ€™t know how to describe ugliness without revealing ourselves as sociopaths.

Once upon a time, I dated a model agent in Los Angeles. Japanese by birth, stationed in LA, scouting for a French agency โ€“ the kind of cosmopolitan trifecta only fashion could breed. Her job? Finding “parts models.” Thatโ€™s right โ€“ someone with flawless teeth but forgettable everything else. Hands like sculpture. Eyelashes like Instagram filters.

Weโ€™d play a game: spot the 10s. She’d nudge me, whisper โ€œher?โ€ Iโ€™d say, โ€œPretty close.โ€ Sheโ€™d shake her head. โ€œLook at that eye tooth.โ€ And weโ€™d dissolve into laughter.

We were mocking perfection. Because perfection is a con. A trick of lighting, contour, and post-production.

So, no. I donโ€™t think any of the women in the AIโ€™s response are ugly. Quite the contrary โ€“ theyโ€™re too beautiful. AI canโ€™t show us “ugly” because itโ€™s been trained to optimise desire, not reflect reality. And our collective understanding of beauty is so skewed that anything less than runway-ready gets sorted into the rejection bin.

If these women are ugly, what exactly is beautiful?

But maybe thatโ€™s the point. Weโ€™ve abstracted beauty so far from the human that even our ugliness is now synthetically pleasing.

What do you think? Are any of these faces truly ugly? All of them? Let me know in the comments โ€“ and try not to rate them like a casting director with a god complex.

Redรฉmarrer avec le franรงais : Un voyage aprรจs 30 ans

English translation below.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic. (in English/en anglais)

J’ai toujours aimรฉ la langue franรงaise, depuis mon enfance. ร€ l’universitรฉ, j’ai suivi quelques semestres de franรงais en tant qu’option libre. Mรชme mes enfants ont รฉtรฉ exposรฉs ร  la langue dans leurs jeunes annรฉes, avec des phrases franรงaises glissรฉes dans mes conversations. Mais voilร , c’รฉtait il y a longtemps ; aujourd’hui, c’est une autre histoire.

Cela fait maintenant plus de 30 ans. Bien que je capte encore des รฉlรฉments de la langue de temps ร  autre, il y a bien longtemps que je n’ai pas regardรฉ un film en franรงais ou lu Le Monde. L’attrition est rapide, et c’est bien pour cela que je souhaite me remettre en selle.

Je partais souvent en voyage avec mes livres et mes albums vinyles โ€” je sais, je suis un peu dรฉmodรฉ โ€” mais tout cela a รฉtรฉ perdu dans un incendie. J’ai donc dรป repartir ร  zรฉro.

Aujourd’hui, je n’ai mรชme pas l’impression d’รชtre un B1. Honnรชtement, je dirais que viser un niveau A1 serait dรฉjร  ambitieux. Ma force a toujours รฉtรฉ la lecture, mais mon vocabulaire en pรขtit. Ensuite viennent l’รฉcriture, suivie de l’รฉcoute et de la parole, bien loin derriรจre. Bref, voici comment je compte m’y prendre pour retrouver au moins le niveau B.

Ma mรฉthode

J’ai commencรฉ par des matรฉriaux de lecture basiques. Et quand je dis “basiques”, je parle de livres pour enfants. Je sais qu’il faut choisir un contenu qu’on peut lire ร  98 % sans dictionnaire. Personnellement, je me permets 90 %, mais je ne cherche pas systรฉmatiquement ร  vรฉrifier un mot.

Dans la pratique, je lis jusqu’au bout pour comprendre le sens global, en notant des mots ou des conjugaisons que je ne connais pas. Quand un mot m’est inconnu, je le note. Parfois, je le retrouve plus tard, et il m’รฉclaire. ร€ une deuxiรจme lecture, je cherche les mots qui restent obscurs. Comme un puzzle, tout commence ร  prendre sens.

Mon premier choix a รฉtรฉ la version franรงaise du manga One Piece. Mais, comme j’avais l’impression de ne pas respecter ma rรจgle des 90 %, j’ai vite dรป abandonner. Premiรจrement, il y avait trop de termes maritimes ร  cause du thรจme pirate. Deuxiรจmement, les รฉlรฉments de bande dessinรฉe m’ont dรฉstabilisรฉ.

Je me suis ensuite tournรฉ vers Le Petit Prince. Un classique, n’est-ce pas ? Eh bien, il est un peu datรฉ. Et il ne respecte pas entiรจrement ma rรจgle des 90 %, mais je persiste. En restant fidรจle ร  ma mรฉthode, j’ai optรฉ pour des histoires courtes pour adultes dรฉbutants. Chaque histoire est suivie d’un rรฉsumรฉ et de questions de comprรฉhension, avec des rรฉponses en franรงais, ce qui est un bonus pour l’autocorrection.

J’ai aussi consultรฉ des ressources en ligne pour amรฉliorer mon รฉcriture et ma comprรฉhension orale. Et bien sรปr, il y a trop de vidรฉos YouTube pour les compter.

Mon point faible resteโ€ฆ eh bien, mon point faible. Alors, j’ai demandรฉ ร  ChatGPT des idรฉes, histoire de ne pas avoir ร  engager un tuteur de langue. Petite confession : j’ai essayรฉ une application de langue basรฉe sur l’IA, mais je l’ai trouvรฉe plus frustrante qu’autre chose, alors j’ai vite abandonnรฉ. ChatGPT m’a suggรฉrรฉ d’utiliser la fonction “saisie vocale” de Google Docs, paramรฉtrรฉe en franรงais. Je l’ai testรฉ. En lisant des passages de mes histoires disponibles, l’application comprenait parfois ce que je disais, parfois pas. Bien que cette approche ait des limites รฉvidentes, cela m’a permis d’รฉvaluer ma diction et de la corriger en consรฉquence.

Je viens de redรฉmarrer mon parcours. J’espรจre trouver le temps et maintenir l’endurance nรฉcessaires. D’ici lร , voici donc le premier rapport de cette nouvelle aventure.

ENGLISH VERSION

Getting Back to French: A Journey After 30 Years

Iโ€™ve always loved the French language since I was a child. At university, I took a couple of semesters of French as free electives. I even exposed my children to it in their younger years, peppering my speech with French phrases. But that was then; this is now.

Itโ€™s been over 30 years. While I still catch bits and pieces incidentally, itโ€™s been a long time since I watched a French-language film or read Le Monde. Attrition sets in quickly, and thatโ€™s why I want to get back in the saddle.

I used to travel with my books and record albumsโ€”dating myself, of courseโ€”but they were lost in a house fire, so I had to start over.

These days, I donโ€™t even feel like Iโ€™m at a B1 level. Honestly, A1 feels like a stretch. My strength has always been reading, but my vocabulary has suffered. Next comes writing, followed by listening and speaking, which are far behind. Anyway, hereโ€™s my approach to getting back to at least the B-range.

My Approach

I started with basic reading materials. And by “basic,” I mean books for children. I understand that one should choose content they can read 98% of without using a dictionary. I allow myself 90%, but I donโ€™t reach for one anyway.

In practice, I read to the end for comprehension, marking words or conjugations I donโ€™t know. If I come across a word I donโ€™t know, I make a note of it. Sometimes Iโ€™ll see it again, and it will click. On a second pass, Iโ€™ll look up any still-unknown words. Like a puzzle, it starts coming together and making sense.

My first choice was the French version of the One Piece manga. But, as I wasnโ€™t following the 90% rule, I quickly had to abandon it. First, there were too many nautical terms because of the pirate theme. Second, the comic book elements threw me off.

Next, I thought of Le Petit Prince. A classic, right? Well, itโ€™s a bit dated. And it doesnโ€™t fully adhere to my 90% rule, but I persist. Staying true to my method, I grabbed some A1 short stories for adult beginners. Each one is followed by a summary and comprehension questions, with answers in French, which is a nice bonus for self-correction.

Iโ€™ve also engaged with some online resources for writing and listening comprehension. And, of course, there are too many YouTube videos to count.

My weakest link is stillโ€ฆ well, my weakest link. So, I asked ChatGPT for ideas short of hiring a language tutor. Full disclosure: I tried a language-learning AI app and found it more frustrating than not, so I ditched it. ChatGPT suggested using the voice typing feature in Google Docs set to French. I tried it. Reading passages from my available stories, the app sometimes understood me, sometimes didnโ€™t. Whilst there are clear limitations to this approach, it allowed me to assess my French pronunciation and correct it accordingly.

Iโ€™ve just restarted my journey. I hope to find the time and maintain the stamina. Until then, this is my documentation of step one.

Bullshit Jobs

Iโ€™ve recently decided to take a sabbatical from what passes for economic literature these days โ€” out of a sense of self-preservation, mainly โ€” but before I hermetically sealed myself away, I made a quick detour through Jorge Luis Borgesโ€™ The Library of Babel (PDF). Naturally, I emerged none the wiser, blinking like some poor subterranean creature dragged into the daylight, only to tumble headlong into David Graeberโ€™s Bullshit Jobs.

This particular tome had been languishing in my inventory since its release, exuding a faint but persistent odour of deferred obligation. Now, about a third of the way in, I can report that Graeberโ€™s thesis โ€” that the modern world is awash with soul-annihilatingly pointless work โ€” does resonate. I find myself nodding along like one of those cheap plastic dashboard dogs. Yet, for all its righteous fury, itโ€™s more filler than killer. Directionally correct? Probably. Substantively airtight? Not quite. Itโ€™s a bit like admiring a tent thatโ€™s pitched reasonably straight but has conspicuous holes large enough to drive a fleet of Uber Eats cyclists through.

An amusing aside: the Spanish edition is titled Trabajos de mierda (“shitty jobs”), a phrase Graeber spends an entire excruciating section of the book explaining is not the same thing. Meanwhile, the French, in their traditional Gallic shrug, simply kept the English title. (One suspects they couldnโ€™t be arsed.)

Chapter One attempts to explain the delicate taxonomy: bullshit jobs are fundamentally unnecessary โ€” spawned by some black magic of bureaucracy, ego, and capitalist entropy โ€” whilst shit jobs are grim, thankless necessities that someone must do, but no one wishes to acknowledge. Tragically, some wretches get the worst of both worlds, occupying jobs that are both shit and bullshit โ€” a sort of vocational purgatory for the damned.

Then, in Chapter Two, Graeber gleefully dissects bullshit jobs into five grotesque varieties:

  1. Flunkies, whose role is to make someone else feel important.
  2. Goons, who exist solely to fight other goons.
  3. Duct Tapers, who heroically patch problems that ought not to exist in the first place.
  4. Box Tickers, who generate paperwork to satisfy some Kafkaesque demand that nobody actually reads.
  5. Taskmasters, who either invent unnecessary work for others or spend their days supervising people who donโ€™t need supervision.

Naturally, real-world roles often straddle several categories. Lucky them: multi-classed in the RPG of Existential Futility.

Graeber’s parade of professional despair is, admittedly, darkly entertaining. One senses he had a great deal of fun cataloguing these grotesques โ€” like a medieval monk illustrating demons in the margins of a holy text โ€” even as the entire edifice wobbles under the weight of its own repetition. Yes, David, we get it: the modern economy is a Potemkin village of invented necessity. Carry on.

If the first chapters are anything to go by, the rest of the book promises more righteous indignation, more anecdotes from anonymous sad-sacks labouring in existential oubliettes, and โ€” if one is lucky โ€” perhaps a glimmer of prescription hidden somewhere amidst the diagnosis. Though, Iโ€™m not holding my breath. This feels less like an intervention and more like a well-articulated primal scream.

Still, even in its baggier moments, Bullshit Jobs offers the grim pleasure of recognition. If you’ve ever sat through a meeting where the PowerPoint had more intellectual integrity than the speaker or spent days crafting reports destined for the corporate oubliette marked “For Review” (translation: Never to Be Seen Again), you will feel seen โ€” in a distinctly accusatory, you-signed-up-for-this sort of way.

In short: it’s good to read Graeber if only to have one’s vague sense of societal derangement vindicated in print. Like having a charmingly irate friend in the pub lean over their pint and mutter, “It’s not just you. It’s the whole bloody system.”

I’m not sure I’ll stick with this title either. I think I’ve caught the brunt of the message, and it feels like a diversion. I’ve also got Yanis Varoufakis’ Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism on the shelf. Perhaps I’ll spin this one up instead.

A Shepherd, A Wolf, and a McDonaldโ€™s Happy Meal

A Grim Allegory of Modernity

As the clock ticks us into 2025, a peculiar tale has surfaced in the blogosphere: a dark twist on the classic fable of the “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” served with a side of nihilistic absurdity. If you haven’t read it yet, you can find the original story over at Blog for Chumps. Itโ€™s a biting little narrative that turns traditional moralising on its head. Here’s why it deserves your attention.

Audio: NotebookLM Podcast on this topic.

The Tale in Brief

A hungry wolf, tired of dodging vigilant shepherds, decides to forgo subterfuge altogether. He waltzes into the flock, making no effort to hide his predatory nature. A naรฏve lamb follows him, and predictably, the wolf claims his meal. Later, the wolf returns to the sheepfold, where the shepherd โ€” instead of protecting his flock โ€” teams up with the wolf. Together, they butcher a sheep before abandoning the scene entirely to indulge in McDonaldโ€™s, leaving the traumatised sheep to accept their grim new reality.

Not exactly bedtime reading for the kids.

Themes: A Cynical Mirror to Our World

This tale is not merely a grotesque subversion of pastoral simplicity; itโ€™s a scalpel slicing into the rotting carcass of modern society. Hereโ€™s what lurks beneath its woolly surface:

1. Cynicism Towards Authority

In most fables, the shepherd embodies protection and care. Here, heโ€™s a collaborator in senseless violence. The shepherdโ€™s betrayal critiques the notion of benevolent authority, suggesting that those entrusted with safeguarding the vulnerable often act in their own interests or, worse, align themselves with destructive forces. Sound familiar? Think political complicity, corporate greed, or any number of modern failures of leadership.

2. Normalisation of Atrocity

The sheep, described as cognitively intact, accept their grim reality without resistance. This isnโ€™t a story about oblivious innocence; itโ€™s about the horrifying human capacity to adapt to systemic violence. It reflects how people, faced with injustice, often acquiesce to their oppressors rather than challenge the status quo.

3. Inversion of Expectations

The wolf doesnโ€™t even bother with the traditional sheepskin disguise. His audacity mirrors the brazen nature of modern exploitation, where bad actors operate in plain sight, confident in the publicโ€™s apathy or resignation. Itโ€™s a commentary on the erosion of shame, accountability, and even the pretence of decency.

4. Absurdity and Nihilism

The shepherd and wolf ditch their victim to grab fast food, trivialising the violence theyโ€™ve inflicted. The juxtaposition of archaic brutality with banal consumerism is absurd yet disturbingly resonant. It suggests that, in our era, even cruelty can be relegated to a footnote in the pursuit of comfort or convenience.

Symbols: Layers of Meaning

The tale brims with symbolic resonance:

  • The Wolf: A stand-in for unchecked greed or predatory systems, the wolfโ€™s brazen behaviour highlights the dangers of apathy and unchallenged power.
  • The Shepherd: His betrayal symbolises the failure of institutions โ€” governments, corporations, or other entities โ€” to protect those they claim to serve.
  • The Sheep: Far from being simple-minded, the sheepโ€™s acceptance of their grim new reality is a biting critique of societal complacency.
  • McDonaldโ€™s: A modern symbol of triviality and consumerism, it underscores the absurdity of senseless violence in a world driven by shallow comforts.

A Stark Commentary on Power Dynamics

At its core, the story is a brutal satire of power and complicity. Though ostensibly adversaries, the shepherd and wolf unite to exploit the powerless. Itโ€™s a chilling reminder of how often power structures protect their own interests at the expense of the vulnerable.

The sheepโ€™s passive acceptance is equally damning. It forces readers to confront their own role as silent witnesses or even complicit actors in systems of oppression. What happens when weโ€™re no longer shocked by atrocity but instead integrate it into the fabric of our existence?

The Satirical Edge

What makes this story particularly effective is its dark, sardonic, and unapologetically hyperbolic tone. It revels in absurdity while delivering a grim truth about human nature. The shepherd and wolfโ€™s nonchalance is as hilarious as it is horrifying, making the tale an unsettling mirror of a society where injustice and apathy often go hand in hand.

Final Thoughts

This fable may be short, but its implications are vast. Itโ€™s a cautionary tale about the dangers of complacency, the betrayal of trust, and the absurdity of modern priorities. More importantly, itโ€™s a call to resist the normalisation of harm โ€” to recognise wolves and shepherds for what they are and demand better from ourselves and those in power.

So, as we usher in a new year, let this tale serve as a grim reminder: the wolf doesnโ€™t always need a disguise, and the shepherd isnโ€™t always your friend. Sometimes, theyโ€™re just two blokes on their way to McDonaldโ€™s.