Fantasy Dollars

If you’re going to get some money in the future and you’re spending it in fantasy, you can buy lots of things. All of the choices exist in fantasy.

Eh?

I’m going to receive a thousand bucks. Yay! I want a thousand bucks. I can get a couch and a fairly nice one. I need a couch, and it would be nice to have a place to sit and read other than my work desk. I can also save it, invest it, or pay off debts. I could buy new shoes, do the brakes on my car, or replace my ancient snowboarding boots. In fantasy, all of these things are somewhat done. In my head, now, while I don’t have the money, after I get the money, all of these things are accomplished because they could be.

I can’t do all of them. It’s only a thousand dollars. But emotionally, all of them feel like they’re done because in the fantasy, they’re all possible.

When I actually get the money, I’ll do one of them. And then the others won’t be done. They won’t be viable possibilities anymore. I won’t think of getting a couch if I pay off the credit card; I won’t imagine getting comfortable boots if I get the couch, and the car’s brakes can go a little bit longer. It just shimmies, just a little, under heavy braking.

All of those undone things go from being possible to impossible, because after that check drops and I spend it, they’re no longer possible. Getting the money means losing possibilities. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say spending the money means losing possibilities, but either way, those possibilities get lost.

This is how writing feels to a lot of people, myself somewhat included. Before the book is written, when it lives in my head, it’s a romance, an adventure, a message, and a saga. After writing, it’s…just this. Maybe it’s good, maybe it has a romance, maybe it’s many things to many people, but it isn’t all the possibilities it could have been before being written.

This is how money works, and is one reason why rich people don’t think they’re as rich as other people think they are. Because if you’re looking at a rich person or imagining a bank account, you’re in the realm of possibility where could buy a jet, a mansion, pay off the debts, or build the stock portfolio. In fantasy, you could do all of those things. But when the person with the money does one of those things, they spent the money. It’s gone. The jet OR the mansion OR the debts OR the portfolio, or, or, or exclusive, are now not possible.

What do you do?

Write more books. Earn more money. Because as long as more is coming in, the possibilities are real.

Accept humility? Enough may never be enough?

Give up fantasy?

That’s one of the great questions.

My thousand bucks exist in fantasy anyway.

Data

Data and gear should be mass nouns, like water. You don’t have a water; you have a few drops, a river, a stream, or an ocean. You have water, maybe liters of it, maybe gallons, maybe hogsheads and half butts, but you don’t get a water unless a water is a unit of it in a fixed quantity. People do say things like, ‘Pass me a water.’ They mean a water bottle or glass, always in a unit.

I don’t have a datum; I’ve got a data point. I’ve got gigs and gigs of them. I have good data, bad data, garbage data, and big data.

Fearless Girl

Outside the NYSE is the Fearless Girl statue. It’s a little girl staring fearlessly, pretty much exactly what it’s named.

Nearby is the Charging Bull

I’m nominally in favor of both, though that may overstate my feelings. I don’t have strong emotions either way, but I’m pro-art and the sculptures are both nifty. Some people have strong feelings toward the Fearless Girl. They identify with her or support people who do. Other people really dislike the Charging Bull, and you can find notes from both Occupy Wall Street and more religious writers. I think the bull is impressively dynamic. Art is supposed to make people feel things, and both of these sculptures do. So they’re a success.

The girl was originally installed right in front of the bull, so that she was staring it down moments before it trampled/gored her to death. Di Modica was not a fan of that. I understand completely. Context isn’t everything, but it is huge, and there’s a wild difference between a bull in isolation, running, and a bull about to trample some kid. Conversely, if she did stare the bull down, that would make the animal much less powerful and fearsome, which influences the way the bull is interpreted.

Now Di Modica just showed up and installed the bull, so he doesn’t have a whole lot of complaining room when Visbal showed up and installed the girl. But I get it. Since the bull is a physical thing and somewhat unique, changing how it is interpreted forever, ie installing another sculpture facing it, would bother me if I was the creator. Yeah, I know there are other copies of the bull, but they’re elsewhere. To me, the uniqueness of the situation is part of the sculpture.