Culture

“It’s in my DNA” has become the all-purpose explanation for anything that repeats across a family or a civilization: a talent, a temperament, a taste for bread and wine, a tendency to slip on the same wet bar of soap three generations running. The phrase borrows the authority of genetics to describe something that is usually just a stable environment, a copied habit, or an unexamined tradition, and the borrowing is not innocent. Calling a pattern genetic quietly removes it from the category of things anyone chose, or could still change. …

We do not only eat food. We eat stories about food. Fat is the enemy, or sugar is poison, or breakfast is sacred, or meat is ancestral, or grains were civilization’s original mistake, or the answer is buried in whatever a grandparent ate before anyone thought to write it down. The stories rotate. The anxiety they produce does not. Every meal becomes a small referendum on whether the body is being cared for or betrayed, and the referendum never quite closes. …

Gabriel García Márquez read Jorge Luis Borges the way a student reads a master: closely, gratefully, for years. Borges, by most accounts, did not return the favor. He found García Márquez’s prose baggy where his own was compressed, sentimental where his own was cold. The debt ran one direction only. That asymmetry is not a footnote in Latin American letters. It is a small, uncomfortable model of how culture actually works, and it is the model we need if we are going to talk honestly about AI slop. …

The English word “BS” has become one of the most successful insults in the language. It is not merely a synonym for falsehood. It is a way of refusing the dirty weight of a more vulgar word while still naming the same condition. In Spanish, mierda carries the smell of the body and the street. In French, merde carries the bluntness of matter and the ugly dignity of the real. English gives us BS, crisp, abstract, almost courteous. It is a very elegant way of saying that something is full of air. …

An earlier post closed on a question I said I wasn’t qualified to answer: if music is a key and the listener a changing lock, can a machine learn the shape of your lock well enough to cut one on demand — an endless supply of the thing that fits, addictive precisely because it fits? I said I suspected yes. That’s not an answer, it’s a hunch, and a hunch doesn’t tell you where the line is. The honest version of the question isn’t whether personalization can become manipulation — of course it can — but where the threshold sits, and how you’d know if a specific platform, the one open in your other tab right now, has crossed it. …

Wherever power gathers into a single pair of hands, a figure in motley appears beside it and begins to laugh. He is permitted what no one else is permitted: to mock the crowned head from arm’s length, to say over dinner what would cost a minister his own. We file the court jester under quaint medieval décor, somewhere between the falconry and the tapestry. He is nothing of the kind. He is a structural organ that grows wherever power concentrates — the way a callus grows where a tool keeps rubbing the hand — and he grows back long after we are sure we have abolished him. …

There are nights when Plácido Domingo has made me cry — real tears, the kind that arrive uninvited at the exact phrase where the voice opens and the whole room tilts. And there are other nights, more than I can count, when Domingo could do nothing for me, and what carried me across the road was a Vallenato by Diomedes Díaz, or Pedro Infante singing a bolero as if the song were a small lit room, or The Beatles’ “The Long and Winding Road.” I used to apologize for this. I have apologized to people who expected me, at a serious hour, to reach for something serious — Mozart, Wagner, Philip Glass — and caught me reaching instead for Shakira, or Julio Iglesias, or Juan Gabriel. I am done apologizing. Not because my taste improved, but because I finally understood what the apology was confessing. …

I. The convergence — what Campbell and Jung actually claim In 1949, Joseph Campbell published The Hero with a Thousand Faces and made a claim that, if true, should have changed everything. Every mythology, across every culture that has ever existed, produces the same story: departure, initiation, return. The hero leaves the known world, undergoes a transformation in the depths, and returns with something for the community. Campbell’s argument was not that the stories resemble each other by coincidence or by diffusion. It was that they resemble each other because they describe the same thing: a psychological process, available to any human being willing to undergo it. …

There was an eleventh-century Tibetan lama known to his students as Gloomy Face. His given name was Langthangpa Dorje Senge; the nickname came from a vow he had taken never to smile. He was also one of the teachers responsible for transmitting the Lojong mind-training slogans — a collection of pithy instructions whose recurring theme is the danger of taking oneself too seriously. The irony, apparently, was intentional. He lived the joke so completely that he became it. …