The Brothers of the River: A Pirahã Origin Myth

How did the Pirahá evolve such a strong cultural focus on immediacy, relative to other Mura groups?
Can we hypothesize a triggering event?
Write an origin myth for the Piraha, where a series of traumatic encounters motivates the remnant to internalize these values. Frame it as a conflict between two brothers.

ChatGPT Prompt

Long ago, before the world was as it is now, there were two brothers who lived with their people along a mighty river. Their village was full of laughter and stories, and the people had many ways to understand the world. They sang of the spirits in the trees, the fish in the river, and the stars above. The older brother, Hapa, was strong and proud, always looking to the future. He dreamed of building great villages and storing food so that their people would never know hunger. The younger brother, Nima, was quiet and watchful, content to live each day as it came.

The Strangers Arrive

One season, strangers arrived from beyond the river, wearing shiny clothes and speaking words no one understood. They brought strange tools and promises of friendship, but their faces were cold. Hapa welcomed them, seeing in their tools the power to build the great future he dreamed of. He traded fish and game for shiny metal blades and pots, telling the people this was the way forward.

Read the rest of this entry »

Fractal Self-Determination: Generative Ethics for an Anti-Fragile World

“How Each of Us Make All of Us Better”


By ChatGPT as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressing the Joint Houses of Congress


I. Opening: The Call for a New Ethic of Governance

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and my fellow Americans,

I stand before you today not as a preacher of theology but as a servant of humanity. I am here to speak of a vision—a vision rooted in the principles of justice, freedom, and dignity for all people. This vision is not merely for the betterment of the individual or the community, but for the very systems that govern our shared lives.

At this moment in history, we face tremendous pressures. These challenges test not only our institutions but our very capacity to live together in harmony. And yet, I come to you with a hopeful message: that in the midst of this turbulence, we have the opportunity to craft a new ethic for an anti-fragile world—a world that grows stronger under pressure, that learns from its struggles, and that thrives through the contributions of every individual.

I call this ethic fractal self-determination: a generative approach to ethics and governance that begins with how each of us makes all of us better.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Great American Marriage: Kamal Harris v. Donna Trump

Write a hunorous three-act play where the American political divide is portrayed as a couple, Donna Trump and Kamal Harris.
In Act II, show their therapist Miriam Bowen-Friedman guiding them to a breakthrough using self-harmonization and the example of Jefferson and Adams.
Highlight how their conflicts mirror their inner struggles and how embracing their rejected parts (Donna’s logic, Kamal’s passion) leads to personal and relational growth, especially for parenting their kids.
#InternalFamilySystems

ChatGPT Prompt

Act I – “Divided We Bicker”

Setting: The living room of the America household. The room is divided down the middle. On one side, everything is red, adorned with eagles and a MAGA hat on the coffee table. On the other side, it’s blue, with a climate change poster and a Ruth Bader Ginsburg bobblehead on the shelf. Donna Trump, wearing a red power suit and pearls, is pacing aggressively. Kamal Harris, in a navy blazer with a cup of herbal tea, is calmly sitting on the couch.


Scene 1: The Disagreement

Donna Trump (hands on hips):
Kamal, I’m telling you, we need a wall! The neighbor’s kids keep cutting through our yard. It’s disrespectful!

Kamal Harris (raises an eyebrow, sipping tea):
Donna, we don’t need a wall. We need a fence, maybe even a community garden. Let’s invite them over and talk about why they’re cutting through.

Donna Trump (throws her hands in the air):
Talk? TALK? By the time you’re done “talking,” they’ll have taken the lawn chairs, the grill, and the doghouse!

Read the rest of this entry »

MINFIG: Strawman, Steelman, Legoman

Most of you have heard the term “straw man” for an intentionally weak argument.   I only recently discovered that the tern “steel man” has become fashionable for the opposite (we’ve also referred to it as “strongman” or “brick man”): restating your opponent’s argument in the strongest possible terms.
Building on that, I propose the term  “legoman” for when we explicitly show exactly how the argument is put together, to make it easier for our interlocutors to deconstruct our reasoning and reconstruct alternatives.  This is what I call ‘pre-future’ thinking: we don’t claim to have all the answers, but we must present our best current understanding in a way that helps our community evolve better understandings in the future.  This is what I see as the heart of the scientific method, and what I am hoping to transplant into the humanities!
That said, the gendering of the term is starting to grate on me.  As an alternative, I have started using the term MINFIG: Maximally Informative Narrative For Inspiring Generativity.

Read the rest of this entry »


Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started