Chapter One
A café in the city center. Evening. The windows look out onto a street with a tram. On the table, two glasses of water, two cups of espresso, a small metal pitcher of milk; the cutlery lies parallel. The background music is barely audible. The phones are set to silent and put away in a bag and a pocket.
He: Did chance choose this place, or did chance have a co-author?
She: The co-author was the cold. I was walking and choosing light. The light here is warm and does not get in your eyes.
He: So our choice begins with physiology. The cornea as the first metaphysics.
She: And the first romance. You drink espresso without sugar, which means you believe bitterness and truth are compatible.
He: I simply think sugar interferes with the results of observation. And you left the milk untouched. So you like contours.
She: I like delineation, yes. It makes it clearer where I end and the world begins. Although sometimes it is useful to blur the borders.
He: To see whether a new form is hidden in the fog.
She: Or to check that the fog is not just a smoke-machine effect in the head. Tell me, are you one of those who came to talk about the future in order not to talk about the past?
He: I am one of those who talk about the past as if it were a hypothesis about the future. Childhood as a pilot project.
She: Then I will begin. I had a summer when I pronounced words only three times. I believed that by the third repetition they reveal the core of their meaning. “Glass. Glass. Glass.” At the third there arose a strange silence.
He: Silence as an indicator of saturation. In my childhood there was a ritual of inversion. I read a book from the end to the beginning. The plot could not be saved, but it made for an interesting trampling along the tracks.
She: You were training reversible causality. A useful skill for love and for philosophy.
He: And for trade. Sometimes it is profitable to know the price of the last page before the first.
She: On a date, talking about trade is risky. Although we all trade versions of ourselves. I brought a version in which I am cheerful and resistant to paradoxes.
He: I brought a version in which I am cautious with ideas but fearless with questions. Shall we exchange?
She: Deal. What is more important to you at a first meeting: the general theory or the particular case?
He: A particular case that begins to behave like an equation. For example, these two glasses of water. They are at the same distance from the center of the table. This is already comfortable for us.
She: Then we have a common meter. That promises hope for synchronization. Good; let us take a step. Theme: language as a way to levy payment from reality.
He: The tax authorities of metaphor.
She: An example. When I say “love,” I issue a receipt to the world and demand delivery of a specific set of sensations. The world sometimes delivers defective goods, but it is a pity to throw the receipt away.
He: Therefore you leave returns open for thirty days?
She: And I keep the box.
He: In childhood I once decided that my name was different. For a whole week I answered only to an invented name. The world tolerated it. But on the eighth day the teacher said, “We cannot rewrite the register.” I understood that institutions are stronger than my experiments.
She: Until you plant your own institution. Or write the register yourself. But yes, language meets paper, and paper wins.
He: And what about the voice? It is warmer.
She: Warmer does not mean stronger. Although sometimes warmth is precisely what wins. For example, my grandmother told one story in such a way that you did not want to sign a single paper.
He: Tell it.
She: They were standing in line for kerosene. Late cold had come to the city. Kerosene was like hope that smells a little of chemistry. And my grandmother heard some woman behind her purring under her breath: “If you wait long enough, the line starts waiting for you.” She turned around, and indeed, the line froze as if it had decided to belong to her. Since then my grandmother believed that speech can change the direction of time. Not in physics; in everyday life.
He: A microlocal victory over entropy.
She: And over despondency. I often think our whole culture rests on such local victories. Memes, acts of mutual aid, scientific hypotheses, love confessions. All these are attempts to make the line wait for us.
He: Then a question. What from the modern do we call progress, while in fact it is just a cunning line?
She: Social networks. It seems we are moving, but in reality we stand at the feed and wait until the feed recognizes us as significant.
He: And artificial intelligence?
She: It is us, only with an external cache of memory. A good servant; a frightening spouse.
He: Then love is the choice not to google each other until the third date. To preserve the right to slow discovery.
She: Exactly. It is the romance of resistance. Tell me, have you often changed your convictions?
He: Often enough to learn not to erase the old ones. I keep them like an archive of editions with notes. Sometimes I go back and read how I changed typefaces.
She: I stopped believing in the saving power of final truth. Now I am closer to the idea of temporary bridges. We build a crossing over a chasm not for eternity but to carry across a few meanings, people, hopes.
He: The temporary bridge as the ideal format of conversation. Not a temple. Not a market. A ferry.
She: That is our meeting. We carry some things through each other. By the way, about things. This milk pitcher reminded me of a parable.
He: I am ready.
She: In one school by the sea the pupils were given identical pitchers and asked to pour in exactly as much milk as would suffice for one sunrise. Those who loved dawn poured more. Those who loved night poured less. But only one pupil noticed that the pitcher sweats along its sides and gives its smell to the air. He said, “Sunrise feeds on smell, not on quantity.” The teacher praised him, but the milk still soured. The conclusion was simple. Even a correct thought does not cancel the acidity of the world. You need both the thought and a lid.
He: A good parable. Practical reason and pure reason enter a marriage of convenience. Let us put on the lid.
She: We have already put it on. With the general rules of the meeting.
He: Then my move. A story about bone marrow and a library. A young doctor noticed that elderly people who had many books at home recovered more easily after surgery. He did not know why. Some spoke of cognitive reserve; others of discipline. He came up with a metaphor: the library as a spare brain. When one is impoverished, the other lends. He began giving patients short books, not about health but about mathematics and poetry. Years later he realized that more important than the books was the habit of getting to the second page. So he began giving bookmarks and asking them to return them with notes. The results remained modest, but the meaning took shape: health loves continuations.
She: Beautiful. I would love such a doctor. Then our conversation is also about bookmarks. We leave each other room for continuations.
He: And we try not to be aggressive toward tempo. Speaking of tempo. We started gently and have already warmed up to diagnoses of the epoch. Too fast?
She: It is the first sign of compatibility. When you do not need to accelerate artificially. But let us take a breath. Simple questions. What is a city to you?
He: A laboratory for testing theories about strangers. If a theory survives the subway, it is fit for marriage.
She: For me, a city is a technique of overlaying frames. You walk and see three times at once: childhood, in which you have not yet been here; the present, in which you are already here; and the future, in which this place will become a memory. The overlay gives you a chance to be tolerant of noise. Because noise will one day become a fact of history, and facts we no longer condemn; we only analyze.
He: Then our era will teach us to tolerate our own noise. For example, the debate about freedom of speech. We conduct it loudly, as if there were one microphone. But there are many microphones, and each has a different number of listeners. In the end it is not truth that wins but the protocol of attention distribution.
She: And here is the romance. Two people can agree on their own protocol. For example, to discuss complex topics without public refereeing, so as not to hand their language to the crowd. It is intimacy of a new type.
He: A kind of marriage contract for ideas. A list of topics we will discuss without witnesses so as to let them grow.
She: And an obligation to change one’s mind if the arguments improve. It is like a rational vow of jealousy. You are jealous of me for the better argument, yet you are glad when I yield to it.
He: An enviable form of trust. Tell me, have you ever left a conversation because it was too good?
She: Yes. Once on a train a fellow traveler told me a story that perfectly closed my inner question. I realized that any continuation would only ruin the crystal. We shook hands and fell silent to the end of the journey. It was the best ending.
Get erik aronesty’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
He: Then we should beware of perfection. Good; let us slightly tear the beauty. Name a delusion you loved.
She: The belief that great books understand me. As if they knew who is reading them. In fact it was I who constantly rewrote myself to their rhythm. Now I am grateful but do not demand reciprocity.
He: I loved the delusion that an honest biography exhausts a person. Later I understood that honesty is a choice of method, not a guarantee of coverage. Any truth has voids.
She: It is pleasant to fill voids together. For example, with what we are doing now. We are building a temporary bridge. Let us agree: at the end of the evening we will determine what we carried across it.
He: I undertake it. And one last light fact before the second cup: are you left-handed or right-handed?
She: Ambidextrous. I write with my right hand; I cut bread with my left. This means that in a crisis I love bypass routes.
He: Then I am lucky. I am an engineer of straight lines. Together we will be able to save on materials.
The café continues its quiet hum. A tram passes outside the window. The barista changes the filter in the coffee machine. A larger water carafe appears on the table.
She: Look, they brought us a reserve. That means we are seen here.
He: To be seen without shouting. A rare luxury.
She: And a good reason to move to the next level of conversation.
He: Ready.
She: Then I propose a theme: where personal responsibility ends and cultural inertia begins.
He: Accepted. Let us pour some water and begin the second chapter.
Chapter Two
The same. Time has advanced. Olives and a plate of bread have appeared on the table. The light has become a little softer. Two people are laughing at the neighboring table. Their laughter does not interfere.
She: I sometimes think responsibility is like manual control of drones. You hold the remote, but the drone has firmware, a connection, wind, other people’s protocols. You are responsible for your hands and for updating the firmware in time. But not for the storm.
He: And not for someone having set up a jammer in the next block. Good. Then cultural inertia is the wind. The question is whether you can design the body so that it uses the wind as thrust.
She: You can, but you will need acceptance of nonlinearity. You want to fly straight, and you are being blown sideways, and only thanks to the drift do you go around the mountain. This is the philosophy of shift. Sometimes justice is achieved not by a straight line but by an honestly calculated curvilinear path.
He: In economics it is like a progressive tax that compensates for uneven starting platforms. In ethics it is like the practice of apology and amnesty as managed forgetting. In love it is like our allowing each other to be imperfect now so that in a year we become carriers of a new norm.
She: Do you believe in amnesty of memory?
He: In a dosed one. You cannot keep forgetting constantly; otherwise experience does not cohere. But memory should have a “grace period” function. Like a library book. You cannot hold on to anger forever without penalties to yourself.
She: Then a story. A man decided to remember all his grievances perfectly. He wrote them on smooth stones and put them in a sack. The more precise the inscription, the heavier the stone became. The sack pulled at his back. One day he met an old bookbinder. The old man proposed transferring the stones into thin notebooks. The man agreed. The content did not change, but his back straightened. He began to carry the notebooks in a backpack and sometimes forgot it at home. Then he realized that the technology of memory determines the weight of ethics.
He: Excellent. Then culture is needed at least to change the medium. We grow over with lighter formats. And culture also protects from the temptation of total tribunal. It is fashionable now to hold court for yesterday’s tweet. I think a court should know the word “frame rate.” You cannot pronounce sentence by a single frame.
She: I agree. But you also cannot justify endlessly. Then the technique will help again. For example, to introduce a decay coefficient for every mistake. If a person three times in a row does the same thing, the coefficient stops working. He chooses not decay but repetition.
He: Sounds like moral physics. Good. Let us turn to the present. Why are we the way we are today?
She: Because for the first time in history we have an almost continuous visibility of one another. We see not only actions but drafts. This creates the illusion of omnipotence over context. It seems that we are obliged to assess everyone. Hence the fatigue and anxiety.
He: And therefore romance has moved into narrow corridors of privacy. In love the winning gesture is the choice to turn off notifications. This is beautiful.
She: And it is a gesture of maturity. Earlier maturity was tested by the ability to endure poverty. Now maturity is tested by the ability to dose excess.
He: Then our first common thesis. Mature love in the twenty-first century is the art of voluntary under-information. We choose not to know the superfluous to preserve the ability to see the essential.
She: Let us write it down. And test it with a parable. There was a city where people were given glasses that increased vision a thousandfold. At first everyone rejoiced. They saw the pores of their loved ones’ skin, micro-scratches on the hearts of their enemies, dust in the rays. Then troubles began. Loved ones seemed too human. Enemies too resilient. Dust too important. Then one woman decided to wear the glasses only in the morning, late at night, and in moments of danger. She explained, “I want to choose the scale.” The townspeople laughed. But years later she remained almost the only one who could love without nausea. So scale is the very measure of the heart.
He: You know how to tell stories. Your stories behave like algorithms that are easily retuned for new input. Here is my answer in the form of a paradox. We all read the same books but see different things in them because the books read us. In the age of algorithms books have become similar to feeds. However, there is a counter-move. Read slowly and aloud. The algorithm does not like the slow.
She: The slow resembles the unpredictable. And a slow date resembles a stable city. Have you ever built a city in your head?
He: Yes. In it the libraries appeared first, then the subway stations, then the bridges, then the river. Only then the houses. Because houses depend on how the paths to them are laid. Love too. First the paths; then the walls.
She: Then I will not be surprised if you love chess.
He: I love it for its false simplicity and honest cruelty. Although I love Go more for its recognition of emptiness as a piece.
She: Emptiness as a piece is exactly about us. Between our lines there are emptinesses. They are not just pauses; they are semantic fields. It would be good not to pour them over with words when not needed.
He: Agreed. Let us leave one emptiness right now.
A pause. The kettle at the bar quietly exhales steam. The traffic light outside switches. The olives remain untouched for one minute.
She: Let us return. You said “honest cruelty.” That reminds me of another topic. Can love be honest and cruel at the same time?
He: It can, if honesty means readiness to see the reality of the other side, and cruelty means refusal to straighten it under yourself. The cruelty is not in breaking but in not forcing to fit. Then honest cruelty is respect for the other’s form.
She: That sounds like a good vow. “I will not level you. I will stand alongside your curvature.” In architecture this is a technique for joining surfaces of different curvature. It requires patience and precision.
He: And in politics it is federalism. The recognition that people cannot be brought to one straight line but can be coordinated for a common movement.
She: We have already run up against politics. Do you see the future as the improvement of protocols or as a change of anthropology?
He: Protocols are faster. Anthropology is slower. Therefore it is reasonable first to repair the interfaces between people. For example, to teach children the technique of disagreement. I would make a school subject “counter-argument with respect.”
She: And “revision of one’s own thesis.” So that children learn to change their opinion publicly without shame. Then adults will play less at impenetrability.
He: And will confuse identity with position less. Now there is a dangerous coupling. A person says, “I am against,” meaning “I am like this.” After that he cannot exit without losing face. Love heals this by giving the face for free.
She: Beautifully said. I agree to a second thesis. Love is a free issuance of a face so that a person can change positions. Let us write it down.
He: Written. Next, the question of death. Indelicate for a second date but useful for a first. Are you afraid?
She: I am not afraid of dying; I am afraid of dying stupidly. I fear leaving an unfinished thought that someone needed. Therefore I leave notes with road signs. If I disappear, the idea has a map.
He: I am afraid of a boring death. And I am also afraid of living a boring life. I save myself by starting conversations I will not have time to finish. This is induced meaning. I am, as it were, leaving postponed continuations in the warehouse.
She: Then we are suitable insurers for each other. Your warehouse and my maps.
He: An insurance contract for one night, with an option to renew.
She: With an attractive rate. But all right; let us test with culture. What has been the main cultural revelation for you in recent years?
He: The professionalization of amateurism. People stopped being ashamed of a low entry. Podcasts, independent newspapers, software, music. It reminds me of craft guilds. And guilds have codes. Not ideal; decent enough.
She: And for me the main revelation is that irony has lost its unconditional power. People again allow seriousness without quotation marks. This makes conversations riskier but also more honest.
He: Then our third thesis. Seriousness without quotation marks returns as a sign of trust. And love can allow itself sincerity without hiding behind a joke.
She: Although the joke remains an instrument. I believe in humor as a way to turn the mirror. I like to joke about myself so as not to get stuck in bronze.
He: Then I will tell a short tale. A philosopher and a baker argued about freedom. The philosopher said that freedom is conscious necessity. The baker answered that freedom is dough that has risen. They argued all night, and in the morning students came to the philosopher. He was tired and said, “To hell with you; freedom is bread you chose not to eat.” The students wrote it down.
