Tag: metaphor

Categories
Cooking Cooking Tips Recipes

On Cooking Backward

I have been thinking about a steak, and about Charlie Munger.

Munger liked to say, “invert, always invert,” meaning that some problems give up more easily if you turn them around and look at them from the back.

I don’t know that he ever cooked a steak in his life, but the advice applies to one anyway. There is a method called reverse searing, and it works like this: you put the meat in a slow oven first, so it warms through gently and evenly, and only at the very end do you give it a hard, fast sear in a hot pan, just long enough for a crust.

This is backward from how most of us were taught — sear first, finish low — and it turns out the old way was mostly wrong, or at least less reliable. The middle of the meat and the outside of the meat have different jobs, and trying to make one method serve both has always been a small, forgivable mistake.

Tri-tip is a peculiar cut of beef — the grain runs one way across part of it and then quietly changes direction, so that if you slice straight through without noticing, you end up with something tougher than it needed to be. You have to find the place where it shifts and turn your knife with it. It isn’t hard, once you know to look. There’s usually a faint seam where the change happens, almost like a crease in fabric, and once you’ve found it you’ll find it every time after.

I don’t want to make too much of this. It does seem true, in cooking and in other things, that the order you do something in matters more than people let on, and that the patient, unglamorous part — the slow oven, the waiting — usually deserves more credit than it gets.

The sear is what you remember. The low heat is what made it possible.

Categories
Creativity Photographers Photography Serendipity Writing

He Taught Us How to See

Michelangelo said he didn’t create his sculptures. He just removed the marble that wasn’t the statue.

I’ve been thinking about that lately. About what it means to have a collaborator whose job isn’t to add things but to help you find what’s already there. I’ve been doing that kind of work recently — the excavation kind — and it has changed how I write and honestly how much I enjoy the making of it.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Start with Jay.

Continue reading “He Taught Us How to See”
Categories
Aging Living

Life Is Wide Open. And Then It’s a Pinhole.

The world is shrinking. Or so we’ve come to appreciate. Jet travel has made it possible to get almost anywhere on the planet in less than a day. And yet.

As I’ve gotten older I’ve become increasingly reluctant to do the kinds of things I wouldn’t have hesitated to do as a younger man. Travel. Driving in busy traffic. Walking the streets in a sketchy urban neighborhood. Nothing dramatic. Just the ordinary texture of a life lived outward, which turns out to require a kind of low-level willingness I don’t always find in myself anymore.

I’ve been trying to understand this.

When I turned 60 I did something I’d never done before. I looked up my life expectancy on a CDC table. The number that came back was 22. I sat with that for a moment. Twenty-two years. I had been alive for 60 and I had 22 more in the actuarial average, which meant I was already three-quarters of the way home. Nobody had told me this was coming. Not the number exactly, but the feeling the number produced — the sudden rearrangement of the geometry, the sense that the horizon had quietly moved while I wasn’t watching.

I’ve been watching it since.

The metaphor I keep returning to is a camera lens. When you’re young the aperture is wide open. You travel. You navigate. You walk into unfamiliar neighborhoods without thinking about it because the lens is just doing what lenses do — starving for light, taking it all in, indiscriminate in the way that only the young can afford to be indiscriminate.

Then it starts to stop down.

Not all at once. There is no morning when you wake up and find the aperture closed. It happens gradually, a slow tightening over years, and you don’t notice because you’re still inside the frame, still moving through the world. Until one day you notice you’re thinking about the trip before you book it. Weighing it. The weighing itself is new.

What I didn’t expect is that the closing doesn’t feel linear. It feels exponential. The rate accelerating in ways that keep outrunning my revised estimates. You recalibrate. Then you recalibrate again. The next recalibration comes sooner than the last.

A friend saw Paul Simon in concert last night. That sent me back to Kodachrome, one of his early hits, a young man’s song about color and vividness and the wide-open lens of youth. Everything looks worse in black and white, he sang at 31. Something about that lyric now, from this side of the aperture, makes it more true than it probably was when he wrote it.

He just thought he was writing about being young.

As a young family with two kids we toured southern England staying at farmhouse B&B’s. One of those vacation memories that linger. We visited the Cotswolds. A place where the stone is the color of late afternoon even at nine in the morning. The thing that catches you there isn’t the famous honey-colored villages but the little creeks running through them — water moving in ways you didn’t expect, off to the side of what you came to see.

I won’t go back. Not because I’ve decided not to. Simply because the aperture has moved and the Cotswolds is on the other side of it now. Still lit. Still there. The creeks still running through in their surprising way.

This is not tragedy.

It is just true.

A stopped-down lens has a property that took me a while to appreciate. The depth of field becomes enormous. Everything in the frame holds with equal sharpness — the near thing and the far thing, the room you’re sitting in and the long accumulated past the room contains. You lose the beautiful blur. You lose the selective mercy of a wide aperture that lets the background go soft and permits you to choose, by implication, what matters.

Now the background insists.

Nothing escapes attention. The specific quality of a morning. The thought that arrives before anything is being asked of you. The idea carried for years, worked through carefully, finally put into words.

Hermann Hesse understood something about this. The deepest lesson of Siddhartha isn’t something the protagonist learns from a teacher. It’s something he has to live until he knows it. Wisdom of this kind cannot pass from one person to another. It has to be earned on the inside, in real time.

Which is another way of saying it cannot be taught at all.

I can describe the aperture. I can hand you the metaphor. But you will only know what I mean when you are standing inside it yourself.

I couldn’t have written any of this at 60. Couldn’t have written it at 70. The aperture had to close this far before whatever this is came into focus — the particular clarity that arrives not despite the narrowing but because of it.

Nobody told me that was coming either.

That’s what I wanted to say.

Categories
Architecture Infrastructure

The Architecture of the Indestructible

We are conditioned to look for the center of things. When we try to understand an organization, we ask for an organizational chart. When we look at a nation, we look to its capital. Traditional architecture—whether of a building, a company, or an army—relies on a classic playbook: a strong hub, radiating outward. You find the center, you secure it, and the system holds.

But what happens when you try to decapitate an enemy, or a technology, that has no head?

In 1964, a brilliant engineer named Paul Baran sat at his desk at the RAND Corporation, trying to solve a Cold War nightmare: How do you maintain a communications network after a catastrophic nuclear strike? Baran realized that traditional networks were centralized—like a wheel with spokes. If you destroy the hub in the center, every single spoke becomes useless.

His solution was the distributed network, the foundational blueprint for what would eventually become the Internet.

“Under the proposed system, each station would need to be connected to only a few of its nearest neighbors… The system would be highly reliable, even if a large fraction of the stations were destroyed.”

Baran mathematically proved that if you remove the center, the edges don’t die. They simply reroute. A few decades later, telecom engineers used a remarkably similar logic to build cellular telephone networks. Instead of one massive, high-power radio tower serving an entire city, they broke the terrain into a grid of small, low-power cells. If one tower goes offline, the network degrades gracefully rather than collapsing. It bends, but it refuses to break.

There is a profound, poetic irony buried here. The United States government originally funded Baran’s research to create a distributed network so that its centralized monolith could survive. Decades later, asymmetric adversaries across the globe adopted that exact architectural philosophy for their physical defense doctrines—creating “Mosaic Defense” systems designed specifically so that when you destroy the center, the edges keep fighting.

They copied our homework to survive our strength.

I find myself thinking about this tension far beyond the realms of military strategy or software engineering. It is a metaphor for how we construct our lives. We often build centralized lives—anchored entirely to a single identity, a single career, or a single institution. We project a monolith of strength to the world. But monoliths are brittle. When the center is struck, the whole architecture crumbles.

The lesson of our modern architecture is becoming increasingly clear, whether you are managing a network, building an organization, or navigating the quiet complexities of a human life. The fragile monolith is an illusion of safety.

The future belongs to the web that knows how to reroute.

Categories
Books Curiosity Living

Working the Seams

This book highlight popped up in my morning Readwise feed recently:

“Fishermen work seams—seams between slow water and fast, between deep water and shallow, between sunlight and shadow. The eddies around rocks, the bubble lines along banks. That’s where the fish are.”

Neil King wrote it in American Ramble, his account of walking from Washington to New York. He was watching fishermen, not fishing himself, which maybe explains why it reads less like instruction and more like revelation. When you’re the observer, you have room to notice what the practitioner is too busy doing to say.

The word seams is doing something I can’t stop thinking about. A seam is a joining. It’s the place where two different things meet and, in meeting, create a third thing: the edge itself. Not slow water, not fast water, but the turbulent conversation between them. The fish aren’t in the slow water. They aren’t in the fast water. They’re in the argument.

I think most of the interesting things in life happen at seams.

The best conversations aren’t the ones where everyone agrees. They’re the ones where two people with genuinely different orientations are standing at the same edge, looking at the same water. The friction between the views creates something neither would reach alone.

The best writing isn’t the settled opinion, the fully-arrived-at conclusion. It’s the essay in the old sense — the attempt — where you can feel the writer at the seam of what they know and what they’re reaching toward. The bubble line between understanding and confusion. That’s where the reader is, too, if they’re lucky.

I notice this on my own blog sometimes. The posts that feel most alive to me aren’t the ones where I knew what I wanted to say before I started. They’re the ones where I began at a seam — between something I’d always believed and something that recently unsettled it — and wrote my way along the edge, not knowing which bank I’d end up on.

There’s a version of this that applies to attention itself.

I dwell on how I pay attention — when I’m reading, when I’m walking, when I’m in conversation. And I’ve noticed that my attention goes flat in the middle of things. Flat terrain. Constant depth. Unchanging light. I have to work to stay present when nothing is in transition.

But put me at a seam — a moment where the mood in a room is shifting, where a piece of music is about to resolve or refuse to resolve, where someone is on the verge of saying something they’ve been circling for an hour — and I’m completely there. Attention is predatory, maybe. It goes where the tension is.

Which is what the fish are doing, of course. The seam isn’t just a metaphor for where interesting things happen. It’s why interesting things happen there. The fast water sweeps food along; the slow water lets you hold your position; the seam between them is where you can eat without being eaten. The fish are solving a real problem. They’re just also, accidentally, living beautifully.

I wonder sometimes if this is what makes a good editor, or a good friend who reads your drafts. They find the seams — the places where you’ve unconsciously papered over a tension, smoothed the fast water into the slow, given the reader no place to be a fish. “Something’s off here,” they say, and what they mean is: you resolved this too quickly. Stay in the argument longer.

The eddies around rocks, the bubble lines along banks.

I want to be a better noticer of those. Not to resolve them. Just to work them.

Categories
AI AI: Large Language Models

The Architecture of Unpredictability

There is a special understanding that comes from looking too closely at a map of a massive network or a large city. There is a point where the individual components vanish, and something else—something “other”—takes over.

Niall Ferguson captures this beautifully in The Square and the Tower:

“Large networks are complex systems which have ‘emergent properties’ – the tendency of novel structures, patterns and properties to manifest themselves in ‘phase transitions’ that are far from predictable.”

We like to believe we are the architects of our systems. We build platforms, we codify laws, and we design cities with the intent of order.

But Ferguson points out that once a network crosses a certain threshold of complexity, it enters a state of “phase transition.” It’s like water reaching 100°C; it doesn’t just get “hotter”—it becomes steam. It changes its fundamental nature.

We see this most vividly today in the trajectory of Artificial Intelligence. An LLM is, at its core, a gargantuan network of weights and probabilities. We understand the math of the individual neuron, yet we cannot fully explain how, at a certain scale, these systems begin to exhibit reasoning, humor, or theory of mind. These are not explicitly programmed “features”; they are emergent properties—the ghost that moves into the machine once the network becomes sufficiently dense.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, describes this phenomenon through the lens of scaling:

“The thing that is so surprising about these models is that as you scale them up, they just keep getting better at things you didn’t explicitly train them to do… there’s this sense in which the model is ‘learning’ the structure of the world just by being forced to predict the next word.”

This is the “emergent property.” It is the intelligence of the beehive that no single bee possesses. It is the sudden, viral revolution that no single activist could have ignited. These properties are far from predictable because they don’t live in the nodes of the network; they live in the relationships between them.

The philosophical weight of this is humbling. It suggests that our world is governed by a structural momentum that defies linear logic.

When we find ourselves in these moments of societal or personal transition, perhaps the goal isn’t to control the outcome, but to understand the new physics of the system we’ve helped create.

We aren’t just parts of the network; we are the medium through which the unpredictable manifests.

Questions to Ponder

  • If your own consciousness is an emergent property of your neural network, where does “you” actually reside?
  • In the social networks we inhabit daily, what properties are emerging that we haven’t yet named?
  • As AI continues its phase transition, are we creating a tool, or are we witnessing the birth of a new kind of physics?
Categories
Biology Creativity Living

The Compost of the Soul

There is a pervasive pressure in modern life to curate our experiences like a museum curator arranges an exhibition. We want to catalog our memories, label our skills, and display only the pristine, unbroken artifacts of our history. We treat our minds like archives—dusty, organized, and static.

But Ann Patchett offers a different, earthier metaphor, one that feels infinitely more true to the messy reality of being human:

“I am a compost heap, and everything I interact with, every experience I’ve had, gets shoveled onto the heap where it eventually mulches down, is digested and excreted by worms, and rots. It’s from that rich, dark humus, the combination of what you encountered, what you know and what you’ve forgotten, that ideas start to grow.”

This imagery of the compost heap is liberating because it removes the burden of purity. In a compost heap, you don’t separate the eggshells from the coffee grounds or the dead leaves from the fruit rinds. It all goes in. The triumphs, the heartbreaks, the books we read halfway, the conversations we barely remember, and the failures we wish we could forget—they are all just organic matter.

The magic, as Patchett notes, is in the digestion. We are not static repositories of information; we are active, biological processors. Time acts as the earthworms, breaking down the sharp edges of raw experience until it loses its original form.

We often fear forgetting. We worry that if we don’t hold onto a memory with a white-knuckled grip, it loses its value. But in the logic of the compost heap, “what you’ve forgotten” is just as vital as what you remember. The forgotten things are simply the matter that has broken down completely, becoming the nutrient-dense soil that supports new growth.

If we view ourselves as compost heaps, we stop fearing the “rot.” We understand that the difficult periods of decomposition are necessary to create the humus required for the next season of growth. We are not built to be archives; we are built to be gardens.

Categories
Creativity Tools Writing

The Untamed Genius of Not Thinking: Bradbury, Creativity and the Two Minds

“Don’t think.” At first glance, Ray Bradbury’s famous advice on the creative act seems almost heretical. How can we create anything of substance, anything brilliant and transcendent, without deep cognitive focus and analytical thinking?

And yet, there is profound wisdom in Bradbury’s deceptively simple directive when we consider what true creativity demands – a willingness to surrender to the uncharted waters of the unconscious mind, to temporarily disengage from the constraints of pure rationality, and allow the kaleidoscopic shards of our imagination to swirl and coalesce into novel, unorthodox forms.

For Bradbury’s “Don’t think” is not advocating mindlessness, but rather a state of expansive awareness, a openness to the unbridled torrent of insights, images and ideas that bubble up from the our mind’s depths when we stop trying to consciously control and direct the creative flow. It is the practiced meditation of clearing one’s mind to simply observe thoughts, associations and impressions to let them arise and fall away without judgement.

What Bradbury observed is that the act of conscious, analytical thinking, while critical for problem-solving, can actually impede the creative process. It tends to force us into our pre-existing neural pathways, compelling us to tread the well-worn grooves of prior patterns, making linear associations along very predictable lines. Creativity, on the other hand, beckons us into the wild underbrush of our minds, off the beaten path, into uncharted realms where we can be liberated from our self-imposed boundaries.

There’s a connection between Bradbury’s advice and the concepts of right brain vs. left brain thinking. The left hemisphere is the seat of our logical, sequential, linguistic reasoning – the part of our mind that categorizes, defines, organizes and scrutinizes details. Our right brain, in contrast, is the hub of intuition, holistic perception, innovation and making new associations between disparate concepts.

When Bradbury said “Don’t think,” he was advocating taking a temporary pause from our left-brain dominance to allow the ingenious talents of our right brain to take primacy – to let it make unexpected leaps of creative fancy, to perceive reality from new angles, to connect ideas through metaphor and visual imagery rather than getting bogged down in deep analytical scrutiny. To let it just jam.

Our left brain’s vital role is not eliminated, of course. Both hemispheres ultimately work in concert. But for tapping into a more creative flow, giving the reins to the right brain’s propensity for unrestrained imagination and divergent thinking can open up new spheres of inspiration, unconstrained by us overthinking analytically.

From this space of simply allowing our mind to widely wander and make new neural associations, true creative breakthroughs are often born. As Bradbury knew, sometimes the greatest innovative genius emerges not from perspiration and analytical rigor, but from setting aside focused thought altogether and trusting the untamed wisdom of the unconscious, innovative mind. Taking a break and going for a walk outside has a way of helping open up that process, lifting our mood and opening us up to new insights and connections.

“Don’t think” is a refreshing perspective on the richness of human cognition. It recognizes the vital role of holistic, nonlinear and imaginative modes of processing – aspects of our mindful intelligence often overshadowed by our pure left-brain rationality. Bradbury’s imperative frees us to fully embrace the kaleidoscopic potency of our creative right minds.