interviewed by anastasiav

[cellio]

1) If you were a toy, what toy would you be?

There is much in this question that is not specified, but oh well. Is a computer a toy? Can I be a self-aware computer that can surf and use email? :-) Nah, didn't think so.

I suppose the most likely answer is some sort of game-playing device (mind games, like chess, not shoot-'em-up action games). Gotta keep the brain active, after all, which argues for a game with some complexity. (I don't actually like playing chess; that was just an example.)

2) Tell me about your favorite (typical or specific) day at Pennsic.

I like the visit-with-distant-friends days best. I always look forward to spending time with Steffan and Elspeth, and Dof and Thora, and Yaakov and Rivka. I try to get at least one visit of several hours with each of them, though they don't tend to be on the same day. There are other people I'd like to be able to visit but either they don't come any more or they do but they're hard to find or we just never connect.

3) Is there someone in your life whom you regret losing touch with? If so, how do you imagine that person living their life today.

I miss my friend Mike. We used to hang out a lot, and he did me many kindnesses when I was laid up with a broken leg. I did not do nearly enough to repay that when he later had a broken arm, and I feel bad about that. But I especially feel bad that we have drifted apart in the last few years, and that my attempts to contact him have failed. (I've tried email, phone, and paper.) I hope he's doing well, but I know that he sometimes just withdraws from the world for a while and I suspect that's what's happened.

4) If you could scientifically prove that God exists, how would that change your outlook on the world? What would you imagine the experiment that proves the hypothisis looks like? Would you do the experement if you knew there was a chance the hypothisis might be disproven?

I suppose if I could prove that, it would just shift the focus of many people's thinking from "does God exist?" to "who has the right understanding of God?". There are lots of people now who are sure that God exists, but they disagree on what that means. So I don't know how much value there is in an existence proof; I'm not personally concerned with persuading the athiests and agnostics, because I don't think I earn any sort of brownie points for recruiting.

So personally, I'm already convinced and don't need proof. Societally, I don't see proof really mattering; it's not going to reduce sources of strife in the parts of the world I care about. Actually, an existence proof (with nothing else) might do harm by instilling even more confidence in the rabid fundies (of all strains). So for those reasons I wouldn't do the experiment, but that's not the question you asked.

What would the experiment look like? That's a good question. It's bad form to demand miracles or try to summon God; that's a good way to get zapped. (Elijah succeeded at Mount Carmel, but that was a pretty dire circumstance and God had already been speaking to him. Established prophets can do things the rest of us can't do.) Some people will see the hand of God in many things, even if it's not there; others will not see it even in a God-sent miracle. So what can serve as proof? I'm kind of stumped there.

The traditional answer, I suppose, is that when the moshiach comes it will be obvious that God is active in the world; in fact, tradition teaches that all will return to God at that point, Jews and gentiles. (This is covered in the Aleinu prayer, which is part of every service.) But that's not an experiment that we can perform, so I mention it only in passing.

Would I do the experiment if it might disprove the hypothesis? It's hard for me to separate this from my prior comments about not doing the experiment in the first place. But I think I would not do the experiment; if Judaism is the result of mass hallucination or the like, I don't think I want to know. Practicing my religion in service to a God I believe exists and cares has improved my life, and in particular it's raised my awareness of how people treat each other. I think that's a good outcome, personally, and even if my own interpersonal relations would be completely unaffected by this revelation (an assertion I am not making), I'd like the uncertainty to remain and perhaps motivate others to do as I did. Some will act well because of enlightened self-interest, some because of a different sort of enlightenment, and some because of religion; why muck with that?

My answer would be a little different if you had asked about an experiment to prove what God wants from us. I absolutely would not do that experiment, because I am unwilling to grant any group -- including one I'm a member of -- a privileged position with respect to the truth.

5) Its 2055 and you win a Nobel prize. Which category do you win for?

I didn't do the experiment in #4, which knocks that out. Dang. :-)

Ok, first I had to apply Google. The six existing categories are: peace, chemistry, physics, medicine, literature, and economics. In four of them I absolutely lack relevant credentials, so that leaves peace and literature. Let's grant that I'm not a statesman, ok? So that leaves literature, which usually means fiction, which also is something I don't do to any significant extent. (For all of this, read "...and don't see that changing".)

So maybe literature is broadened substantially and I make a real contribution to the field of technical writing, probably by finding a way to make a large part of the traditional job obsolete. Specifically, if the thing you're documenting is designed really well and really intuitively, you don't need very much of the nuts-and-bolts documentation because that's obvious. So if I did something that got people to act as agents of change there, and also helped writers produce spectacularly-good documentation for what remains (explaining the concepts and design principles), maybe someone could make the case for that. Maybe. Not that I'm holding my breath. :-)

Alternatively (and even less likely), I win in the new religion category, though I can't imagine what sort of achievement would be worthy of such a thing. (Hey, since any realistic projection of my life does not include even mid-level fame, let alone Nobel notice, I have to wave my arms wildly on this question.)

Comments

[cellio]

Whoops, I'm sorry. I somehow missed this interview request.

1. What thing that you enjoy about the SCA most surprises you? That is, what do you like that you didn't expect to like?

2. If you could relive a single day of your life without changing anything, what day would it be?

3. Your favorite eccentric professor gives you a single-use time machine. You can pack a trunk and go to any time and place, past or future. Do you use it and, if so, where/when do you go?

4. The genie in the bottle grants you an audience with any single person, living or dead (and temporarily revived). Translation services will be provided if needed. Who's it going to be?

5. What brings you joy?