Cold, Aliens, and the Grammar That Thinks It Knows Too Much

2โ€“3 minutes

I shared this post not too long ago. Today, I shared it in a different context, but I feel is interesting โ€“ because I feel that many things are interesting, especially around language and communication.

It commenced here on Mastodon.

Ocrampal shared a link to an article debating whether we are cold or have cold. Different cultures express this differently. It’s short. Read it on his site.

Audio: Exceptional NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.

I replied to the post:

Nicely observed. I’ve pondered this myself. Small linguistic tweak: between รชtre and avoir, avoir already behaves better metaphysically, but sentir seems the cleanest fit. Cold isnโ€™t something one is or has so much as something one senses โ€” a relational encounter rather than an ontological state or possession.

Between having and being, having is the lesser sin โ€” but sensing/feeling feels truer. Cold belongs to the world; we merely sense it.

He replied in turn:

Agree except for: “Cold belongs to the world”. That is a metaphysical assumption that has consequences …

Finally (perhaps, penultimately), I responded:

Yes, it does. That statement was idiomatic, to express that ‘cold’ is environmental; we can’t be it or possess it. Coincidentally, I recently wrote about ‘cold’ in a different context:

where I link back to the post at the top of this article.

A more verbose version of this response might have been:

And this is exactly the problem I gestured at in the aliens piece. We mistake familiar grammatical scaffolding for shared metaphysics. We assume that if the sentence parses cleanly, the ontology must be sound.

Language doesnโ€™t just describe experience. It quietly files it into categories and then acts surprised when those categories start making demands.

Cold, like aliens, exposes the trick. The moment you slow down, the grammar starts to wobble. And that wobble is doing far more philosophical work than most of our declarative sentences are willing to admit.

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)

The XAND Manifesto: A Civilised Solution to Linguistic Barbarism

3โ€“4 minutes

Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Conjunction Superiority

Do you ever get in one of those moods? Yeah, me too.

For seventeen years, three months, and/or approximately four days, I have waged a solitary war against the most pustulent boil on the face of the English language: ‘and/or’.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic. 8.5/10

This Frankensteinian abomination โ€“ this typographical hedge-sitting โ€“ this coward’s conjunction โ€“ has haunted my waking hours like a particularly persistent creditor. Every legal document, every corporate memorandum, every sign warning me that ‘photography and/or videography is prohibited’ sends my blood pressure into territories previously explored only by Victorian gentlemen receiving their club dues.

The Problem with And/Or (Shudder)

Let us be brutally honest: ‘and/or’ is what happens when a language gives up. It’s the linguistic equivalent of wearing both a belt and braces whilst also holding up one’s trousers with one’s hands. Pick a lane, for heaven’s sake.

The Americans might tolerate such fence-sitting โ€“ they elected [REDACTED] after all; their electoral history speaks for itself, but we can do better. We must do better.

Enter: XAND

After years of painstaking research (three Wikipedia articles and a fever dream following some dodgy prawns), I have developed the solution: XAND.

Pronounced ‘zand’, naturally โ€“ /zหˆรฆnd/. None of this ‘ex-and’ nonsense โ€“ we’re not animals.

Why XAND?

  1. It’s exclusive OR from Boolean logic, but spiritually elevated: Computer scientists have XOR (exclusive or). Mathematicians have โŠ•. We now have XAND โ€“ combining AND and OR with the mystique of algebra and the pretension of using X in anything to make it sound more sophisticated.
  2. It’s properly British: That X gives it a whiff of the obscure, like ‘Cholmondeley’ being pronounced ‘Chumley’. Foreigners won’t know how to use it. Perfect.
  3. It looks like a Roman numeral had a midlife crisis: X + AND = gravitas with just a hint of desperation. Rather like myself.
  4. It’s trademarked in my mind palace: I’ve already designed the letterhead XANDโ„ข.

Usage Examples

Before (Neanderthal): ‘Please bring your passport and/or driver’s license’
After (Enlightened): ‘Please bring your passport XAND driver’s license’

See? You can feel your IQ rising. That’s not a stroke; that’s sophistication.

Before: ‘Participants may submit essays and/or video presentations’
After: ‘Participants may submit essays XAND video presentations’

The ambiguity remains, but now it’s cultured ambiguity. Like a good sherry.

The XAND Lifestyle

Since adopting XAND in my personal correspondence, I’ve noticed several changes:

  • My solicitor has stopped returning my calls
  • I’ve been uninvited from three book clubs
  • My wife has suggested ‘taking some time apart’
  • I feel more alive than I have any right to.

Join the Revolution

Some said I was barking mad. My therapist said I was ‘fixating unhealthily’. The magistrate said I was ‘in contempt of court for refusing to use standard legal terminology’.

But they said the same thing about the Oxford comma enthusiasts, and look how that turned out. (Still arguing on the internet, but with panache.)

The XAND revolution begins with you, dear reader. Use it in emails. Slip it into presentations. Scrawl it on legal documents. When people ask what it means, look at them with barely concealed pity and say, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t understand’.

Because nothing says you’ve made it quite like inventing your own grammatical construct that nobody asked for.

XAND that’s the tea. โ˜•


Geoffrey Pemberton-Smythe (AKA Bry Willis AKA Ridley Park AKA that guy) writes from his mother’s guest cottage in Upper Wibbling-on-the-Marsh, where he is currently labouring over his magnum opus: ‘A Taxonomy of Semicolon Abuses in Modern Discourse (With Particular Attention to American Corporate Memoranda)’. He is not fun at parties XAND proud of it.

Homo Legibilis

3โ€“4 minutes

A Brief Field Note from the Department of Bureaucratic Anthropology

Still reeling from the inability to fold some pan into homo, Palaeontologists are seemingly desperate for a new hominid. Some dream of discovering the ‘missing link’; others, more honest, just want something with a jawline interesting enough to secure a grant. So imagine the surprise when the latest species didnโ€™t come out of the Rift Valley but out of an abandoned server farm somewhere outside Reading.

Theyโ€™ve named it Homo Legibilis โ€“ the Readable Human. Not ‘H. normฤlis’ (normal human), not ‘H. ratiลnฤlis (rational human), but the one who lived primarily to be interpreted. A species who woke each morning with a simple evolutionary imperative: ensure oneโ€™s dataprints were tidy, current, and machine-actionable.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.

Youโ€™ll have seen their skeletons before, though you may not have recognised them as such. They often appear upright, mid-scroll, preserved in the amber of a status update. A remarkable creature, really. Lithe thumbs. Soft cranial matter. Eyes adapted for low-light environments lit primarily by advertisements.

Habitat

The species thrived in densely surveilled ecosystems: corporate intranets, public Wi-Fi, facial-recognition corridors, anywhere with sufficient metadata to form a lasting imprint. They built vast nests out of profiles, settings, dashboards. Territorial disputes were settled not through display or violence but through privacy-policy updates. Their preferred climate? Temperate bureaucracy.

Diet

Contrary to earlier assumptions, H. Legibilis did not feed on information. It fed on interpretation: likes, metrics, performance reviews, and algorithmic appraisal. Some specimens survived entire winters on a single quarterly report. Every fossil indicates a digestive tract incapable of processing nuance. Subtext passed through untouched.

Mating Rituals

Courtship displays involved reciprocal data disclosure across multiple platforms, often followed by rapid abandonment once sufficient behavioural samples were collected. One famous specimen is preserved alongside fourteen dating-app profiles and not a single functional relationship. Tragic, in a way, but consistent with the speciesโ€™ priorities: be seen, not held.

Distinguishing Traits

Where Homo sapiens walked upright, Homo legibilis aimed to sit upright in a chair facing a webcam.
Its spine is subtly adapted for compliance reviews. Its hands are shaped to cradle an object that no longer exists: something called ‘a phone’. Ironically, some term these ‘mobiles’, apparently unaware of the tethers.

Researchers note that the creatureโ€™s selfhood appears to have been a consensual hallucination produced collaboratively by HR departments, advertising lobbies, and the Enlightenmentโ€™s long shadow. Identity, for H. legibilis, was not lived but administered.

Extinction Event

The fossil record ends abruptly around the Great Blackout, a period in which visibility โ€“ formerly a pillar of the speciesโ€™ survival โ€“ became inconvenient. Some scholars argue the species didnโ€™t perish but simply lost the will to document itself, making further study inconvenient.

Others suggest a quieter transformation: the species evolved into rumour, passing stories orally once more, slipping back into the anonymity from which its ancestors once crawled.

Afterword

A few renegade anthropologists insist Homo Legibilis is not extinct at all. They claim itโ€™s still out there, refreshing dashboards, syncing calendars, striving to be neatly interpreted by systems that never asked to understand it. But these are fringe theories. The prevailing view is that the species perished under the weight of its own readability. A cautionary tale, really. When your survival strategy is to be perfectly legible, you eventually disappear the moment the lights flicker.

Time to Talk Turkey

2โ€“3 minutes

Several countries set aside holidays to celebrate thanks-giving. This is a fine tradition, if not hypocritical, given the behaviours manifest on the other days, which isn’t to say that the day itself isn’t without consistency challenges.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast on this topic.

In the United States, today is the day of thanks โ€“ Thanksgivingโ„ข โ€“ the last Thursday of the month of November. This problem isn’t the day or the name; it’s the accompanying tradition that has to go.

Video: “Pilgrim” riding a 4-legged turkey โ€“ Damned Midjourney. (No sound).

This day is supposed to represent a day of unity, where the Pilgrimsโ„ข shared thanks with the indigenous peoples, without whom they would have likely perished. Without Romanticising, this might have been a better outcome.

As history is penned by the survivors, the Pilgrims and their ilk repaid their thanks with genocide and systematic oppression. The country โ€“ renamed as America, and then the United States ofโ€ฆ (a misnomer if there ever was one) โ€“ summarily renamed these inhabitants as Native Americans. Somehow, Proto Americans feels more apt.

To make a long story longer, we need to jettison this performative connexion to these indigenous peoples and focus on just being thankful for the sake of being thankful โ€“ at least by metaphor. This isn’t out of respect for the indigenous cultures, but at least reflects less revisionist history.

They almost got rid of Columbus Day, if not for the uprising of white Christian nationalists. They should extricate the religious aspects of Christmas, an even more hypocritical holiday.

Or maybe I just don’t like holidays.

More accurately, I donโ€™t trust a civilisation that sets aside one day to perform gratitude, then spends the remaining 364 as a Black Friday pre-game warmup. We gorge on narratives the way we gorge on turkey: carving up the past, seasoning it with national mythology, and swallowing without chewing. The Pilgrimsโ„ข didnโ€™t break bread so much as break treaties; they didnโ€™t share so much as seize. But here we are, centuries later, performing thanks like a national yoga pose. Stretch, breathe, pretend everything is fine.

What if, instead of reanimating a historical fan-fiction about harmony and pie, we admitted the truth? That the country owes its existence to conquest, and its conscience to annual amnesia? Strip Thanksgiving of its sanctimony and keep the gratitude if you must, but at least stop embossing colonialism with little cartoon turkeys in buckled hats.

Be thankful for the food, for the people youโ€™ve not yet alienated, for the brief respite from wage-slavery. But realise the holiday itself is a museum of revision. A diorama of innocence that never existed. A Norman Rockwell oil painting slapped over a crime scene.

So enjoy your meal. Be warm, be fed, be kind โ€“ even if only for a day.
Just donโ€™t confuse the performance of gratitude with the reality it obscures.

Accusations of Writing Whilst Artificial

2โ€“3 minutes

Accusations of writing being AI are becoming more common โ€“ an irony so rich it could fund Silicon Valley for another decade. Weโ€™ve built machines to detect machines imitating us, and then we congratulate ourselves when they accuse us of being them. Itโ€™s biblical in its stupidity.

A year ago, I read an earnest little piece on ‘how to spot AI writing’. The tells? Proper grammar. Logical flow. Parallel structure. Essentially, competence. Imagine that โ€“ clarity and coherence as evidence of inhumanity. Weโ€™ve spent centuries telling students to write clearly, and now, having finally produced something that does, we call it suspicious.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic and the next one.

My own prose was recently tried and convicted by Redditโ€™s self-appointed literati. The charge? Too well-written, apparently. Reddit โ€“ where typos go to breed. I pop back there occasionally, against my better judgment, to find the same tribunal of keyboard Calvinists patrolling the comment fields, shouting ‘AI!’ at anything that doesnโ€™t sound like it was composed mid-seizure. The irony, of course, is that most of them wouldnโ€™t recognise good writing unless it came with upvotes attached.

Image: A newspaper entry that may have been generated by an AI with the surname Kahn. ๐Ÿง๐Ÿคฃ

Now, Iโ€™ll admit: my sentences do have a certain mechanical precision. Too many em dashes, too much syntactic symmetry. But thatโ€™s not ‘AI’. Thatโ€™s simply craft. Machines learned from us. They imitate our best habits because we canโ€™t be bothered to keep them ourselves. And yet, here we are, chasing ghosts of our own creation, declaring our children inhuman.

Apparently, there are more diagnostic signs. Incorporating an Alt-26 arrow to represent progress is a telltale infraction โ†’ like this. No human, they say, would choose to illustrate A โ†’ B that way. Instead, one is faulted for remembering โ€“ or at least understanding โ€“ that Alt-key combinations exist to reveal a fuller array of options: โ€ฆ, โ„ข, and so on. Iโ€™ve used these symbols long before AI Wave 4 hit shore.

Interestingly, I prefer spaced en dashes over em dashes in most cases. The em dash is an Americanism I donโ€™t prefer to adopt, but it does reveal the American bias in the training data. I can consciously adopt a European spin; AI, lacking intent, finds this harder to remember.

I used to use em dashes freely, but now I almost avoid themโ€”if only to sidestep the mass hysteria. Perhaps Iโ€™ll start using AI to randomly misspell words and wreck my own grammar. Or maybe Iโ€™ll ask it to output everything in AAVE, or some unholy creole of Contemporary English and Chaucer, and call it a stylistic choice. (For the record, the em dashes in this paragraph were injected by the wee-AI gods and left as a badge of shame.)

Meanwhile, I spend half my time wrestling with smaller, dumber AIs โ€“ the grammar-checkers and predictive text gremlins who think they know tone but have never felt one. They twitch at ellipses, squirm at irony, and whimper at rhetorical emphasis. They are the hall monitors of prose, the petty bureaucrats of language.

And the final absurdity? These same half-witted algorithms are the ones deputised to decide whether my writing is too good to be human.

The Burnout Society โ€“ Byung-Chul Han

1โ€“2 minutes
A digital MTG trading card titled โ€œAchievement Token โ€“ Condition.โ€ The image shows a human figure shaped like an hourglass, sand flowing through its body as if time and self are draining away. The design echoes the colours of oxidised red and muted graphite, symbolising burnout and the illusion of productivity within modern capitalist culture.
Image: Exhaustion means youโ€™re working hard, and working hard means youโ€™re good.

Hanโ€™s slender essay reads like a diagnosis of our psychic economy. The disciplinary society of ‘thou shalt’ has dissolved into the achievement society of ‘yes, I can’. We no longer rebel against authority; we internalise it, polishing our exhaustion until it gleams like ambition. Productivity replaces purpose. Rest becomes guilt. The subject, stripped of exterior constraint, now self-flagellates in the name of freedom.

What Han captures is not mere fatigue but a civilisational pathology: the compulsion to optimise the self as though it were capital. Burnout is not the collapse of will but the logical conclusion of unlimited permission.

If liberation now feels indistinguishable from exhaustion, what exactly have we been freed from?

From the series Readings in Late Exhaustion โ€“ a Philosophics reflection on the maladies of modernity.


About the Series โ€” Readings in Late Exhaustion

These cards belong to Readings in Late Exhaustion, a Philosophics project tracing the psychic and cultural costs of late capitalism.

Each card interprets a contemporary work of critical theory through the language of collectable gameplay, where identity, labour, and value become quantified acts.

The format itself is the critique: a system of self-expenditure disguised as achievement, reflection rendered as performance.

Edition: RLE / LCAP โ€” Philosophics Press


Constructivist Lens โ€” Artifact

Parody Magic: The Gathering trading card

When drawn, this card alters perception itself. It reminds the player that truth is not something one finds under a rock but something one polishes into shape. Each metaphor becomes a spell; each keyword a crutch thrown aside.

Those who wield the Constructivist Lens see not โ€œfacts,โ€ but fictions so useful they forgot to call them that. Reality wobbles politely to accommodate belief.

โ€œKnowledge is not a copy of reality but a tool for coping with it.โ€
โ€” Richard Rorty

In game terms: Tap to reframe existence as interpretation. Duration: until the next disagreement.

Autonomy: Creature โ€“ Rational Individual

1โ€“2 minutes

Autonomy attacks each turn if able.
Whenever Autonomy becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it.

This is from the POMO series of mock Magic: The Gathering trading card images. Don’t read too much into them.

I decided I could share images on Instagram and reshare them here. This is the result.

Post Everything: Notes on Prefix Fatigue

3โ€“4 minutes

Iโ€™m no fan of labels, yet I accumulate them like a cheap suit:

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

Apparently, Iโ€™m so far post that I may soon loop back into prehistoric.

But whatโ€™s with the โ€œpostโ€ in post? A prefix with delusions of grandeur. A small syllable that believes it can close an epoch. Surely, itโ€™s a declaration โ€“ the end of modernity, humanity, enlightenment. The final curtain, with the stagehands already sweeping the Enlightenmentโ€™s broken props into the wings.

Sort of. More like the hangover. Post marks the morning after โ€“ when the wineโ€™s gone, the ideals have curdled, and the partyโ€™s guests insist they had a marvellous time. Itโ€™s not the end of the thing, merely the end of believing in it.

Have we ever been modern? Latour asked the same question, though most readers nodded sagely and went back to their iPhones. Modernity was supposed to liberate us from superstition, hierarchy, and bad lighting. Instead, we built glass temples for algorithms and called it progress. Weโ€™re not post-modern โ€“ weโ€™re meta-medieval, complete with priestly influencers and algorithmic indulgences.

Can a human even be post-human? Only if the machines have the decency to notice. We talk about transcending biology while still incapable of transcending breakfast. Weโ€™ve built silicon mirrors and called them salvation, though what stares back is just the same old hunger โ€“ quantised, gamified, and monetised.

And post-enlightenment โ€“ how does that work? The light didnโ€™t go out; it just got privatised. The Enlightenmentโ€™s sun still shines, but now you need a subscription to bask in it. Its universal reason has become a paywalled blog with โ€œpremium truthโ€ for discerning subscribers.

The tragedy of post is that it always flatters the speaker. To call oneself post-anything is to smuggle in the claim of awareness: I have seen through the illusion; I am after it. Yet here I am, a serial offender, parading my prefixes like medals for wars never fought.

So, what other posts might I be missing?

  • Post-truth. The phrase itself a confession that truth was a brief, ill-fated experiment. We donโ€™t reject it so much as outsource it.
  • Post-ideological. Usually said by someone with a very loud ideology and a very short memory.
  • Post-colonial. A hopeful label, but the empires still collect rentโ€”digitally, algorithmically, politely.
  • Post-gender. Another mirage: we declared the binary dead and then resurrected it for sport.
  • Post-capitalist. Spoken mostly by people tweeting from iPhones about the end of money.
  • Post-ironic. The point where irony becomes sincerity again out of sheer exhaustion.

We could go on: post-religious, post-political, post-work, post-language, post-reality. Eventually, weโ€™ll arrive at post-post, the Mรถbius strip of intellectual despair, where each prefix feeds upon the previous until nothing remains but the syntax of self-importance.

Perhaps itโ€™s time to drop the โ€œpostโ€ altogether and admit weโ€™re not beyond anything. Weโ€™re stuck withinโ€”inside the compost heap of our own unfinished projects. Every โ€œpostโ€ is a failed obituary. The modern keeps dying but refuses to stay dead, haunting us through progress reports and TED talks.

Maybe what we need isnโ€™t post but inter: inter-modern, inter-human, inter-lightโ€”something that acknowledges the mess of entanglement rather than the fantasy of departure.

Because if thereโ€™s one thing the โ€œpostโ€ reveals, itโ€™s our pathological need for closure. We crave the comfort of endings, the illusion of progress, the satisfaction of having โ€œmoved on.โ€ But culture doesnโ€™t move on; it metastasises. The prefix is just morphine for the modern conditionโ€”a linguistic palliative to ease the pain of continuity.

So yes, Iโ€™m guilty. Iโ€™ve worn these risible labels. Iโ€™ve brandished post like a scholarโ€™s rosary, invoking it to ward off the naรฏvetรฉ of belief. Yet beneath the cynicism lies a quiet longingโ€”for an actual after, for the possibility that one day something might really end, leaving room for whatever comes next.

Until then, we keep prefixing the apocalypse, hoping to stay ahead of it by one small syllable.