3-7, Wednesday

Another in a long line of beautiful days. Clear, blue skies, slight wind, highs in the 70’s. At a cost, of course — no rain.

Lunch With My Old Workmates

I drove up to my old workplace and had lunch with my former fellow workers. We laughed over the usual bureaucratic boneheadedness that continues to prevail in the FAA. We talked about our plans for the future, what is different at work, the prospect of reduced staffing with installation of the new computer system, the chance of one of their contractors joining the FAA, with Steve’s retirement and the challenges the loss of another software person will create.

Really, the same conversations we had when I was still working there. While I miss their company and our daily talks, I don’t miss the agency at all. I do not long for my former identity, the daily trek into the bureaucratic hubub, the commute, the absurdity of my own manager’s orders, plans, strategies. Not a bit and not even for a second.

Relieved I feel that way, actually.

Constantly Shifting Reality

I had barely finished reading Jean Baudrillard’s obituary in the NYT when I ran across what seems an apt example of Baudrilard’s complaints about culture. Harry Potter is naked in Equus. So we poor viewers see Daniel Radcliffe transform from this:

into this:

Reality is synthetic, our perceptions become the creation of media, Harry Potter (tie and jacket with glasses) is Alan Strang (naked, screaming, violent) with no transition and with no trouble. This fluidity and the willingness of viewers to accept this fluidity is ably expressed by a young girl in the Times article:

“I think he’s a really good actor, and I sort of forgot about Harry Potter,” said Ophelia Oates, 14, who saw the play over the weekend. “Anyway, you can’t be Harry Potter forever.”

Hardly forever. Really, fewer than 10 hours on screen has Radcliffe played Potter. Easy just to forget, even though your impression is that Radcliffe was Harry Potter (simply referred to as HP by those on the inside) “forever”. Baudrillard would find any distinction between these two characters meaningless, I suppose. Both are simulacra, distracting us from the truth that neither really exist.

Well, OK. Simulacrum, through, can be dangerous. Remember Agent Smith in The Matrix. Characters can turn on their masters. Think of Spock, completely enveloping Leonard Nimoy’s real personality. Nimoy had to write a book to remind everyone that