by Greg Bear
Lascal got up from his chair and pointed to the facilities. “Anything we can make for you, Mr. Albigoni?”
“No thank you, Paul. I think I’ll take a room in La Jolla tonight. Maybe leave in a few minutes. If you don’t need me.”
“All right,” Martin said. “We’ll do some more questioning this evening, but nothing else. I think you should be here for the first entry.”
“I will be,” Albigoni said. “Thank you.”
As Albigoni left, Lascal resumed his seat. “His heart isn’t in this now,” he said. “It’s hit him hard. I think until now he didn’t believe Betty-Ann was really dead.”
Martin blinked. It was easy to lose track of the human element here. Carol regarded Lascal coolly, lips pursed. Clinical distancing, he thought. The others looked faintly uneasy as if they were intruding on a family tragedy, which they were.
In the last session of the evening, with Erwin, Margery and Lascal in the patient room, Erwin asked most of the questions. As before, Martin, Carol, David and Karl watched the screen in the observation room.
Erwin took Margery’s slate and began with the questions Martin had written down.
“It’s eight o’clock. How are you feeling, Mr. Goldsmith?”
“Fine. A little tired.”
“Are you unhappy?”
“Well, I suppose, yes.”
“Do you remember when this all began?”
Pause. Two seconds. “Yes. Quite clearly. I’d like to be able to forget.” Distant smile.
“Do you think very often about Africa now?” Erwin asked.
“No, I don’t think much about Africa.”
“Would you like to go there?”
“Not particularly.”
“Many American blacks think of it as their homeland, as others might think of England or Sweden…”
“I don’t. Have you been to Africa? White folks’ history hasn’t left much for me to go home to.”
Erwin shook his head. “Would you like to go to Hispaniola?”
“I’d prefer that over going to Africa. I’ve been to Hispaniola. I know what to expect.”
“What do you expect in Hispaniola?”
“I…have friends there. I’ve sometimes thought about living there.”
“Is it better in Hispaniola than here?” Erwin was improvising now; there was only one more question in the list Martin had written down and the time was not ripe for that question.
“Hispaniola is a black culture.”
“But John Yardley is white.”
“A mere blemish.” Again the same disengaged smile. “He’s done so much for all Hispaniolans. It’s truly beautiful there.”
“Would you go there now if you could?”
(Martin half expected some sign of irritation from Goldsmith, but of course it did not come. Goldsmith maintained his pleasantly neutral calm.)
“No. I want to stay here and help you.”
“You mean, you want to help us discover why you murdered those young people.”
Goldsmith looked away, nodded.
“Would you go to Guinée if you could?”
Goldsmith’s expression hardened. He did not answer.
“Where is Guinée, Mr. Goldsmith?”
Softly, “Call me Emanuel, please.”
“Where is Guinée, Emanuel?”
“Lost. We lost it centuries ago.”
“I mean where is your Guinée?”
“That’s a name the Haitians, the Africans on Hispaniola use for their homeland. They’ve never been there. It isn’t real. They think some people go there when they die.”
“You don’t believe in a homeland?”
(Martin smiled and tipped his head in admiration. Erwin was doing a better job than he himself might have at zeroing in on this associational knot.)
“Home is when you die. There are no homes. Everybody steals our homes. Nobody can steal what’s left to you when you die.”
“You don’t believe in Guinée?”
“It’s a myth.”
Erwin had leaned forward during the last few questions, staring at Goldsmith. Now he leaned back and relaxed. Glanced at Margery.
“Tag team,” Goldsmith said. Casual, accepting.
“Who are you?” Margery asked. “Where do you come from?”
“I was born in—”
“No, I mean, where do you come from?”
“Excuse me. I’m confused.”
“Where does the person who murdered the eight young people come from?”
Eight second pause. “Never refused to admit guilt. Here to accept responsibility.”
“You murdered them?”
Pause. Five seconds. Again the hard expression, the glint of something beyond casual interest in Goldsmith’s eyes; a carnivorous gleam, frightened cat. (Martin wished they had a body trace on Goldsmith at this moment; but that could come later if it was necessary.)
“Yes. Murdered them.”
“You did.”
“It isn’t necessary to hound me. I’m cooperating.”
“Yes, but Mr. Goldsmith, Emanuel, you murdered them, is that what you admit?”
“Yes. Murdered them.”
Lascal cleared his throat. He looked distinctly uncomfortable.
(Martin shifted his eyes away from Lascal’s image, keyed a closeup of Emanuel through the screen controls. Flat. Casual. Eyes dull.)
“Can you tell us what happened then?”
Goldsmith looked down at the floor. “I’d rather not.”
“Please. It would help us.”
He stared at the floor for forty two seconds. “Invited them over to hear a new poem. Actually hadn’t written a poem. Told them to come individually, fifteen minutes apart; that the old poet would give them a piece of the poem to read and think about and then they would all gather in the living room and criticize. Said it was a kind of ritual. When they came into the apartment one by one took each of them into a back room.” Pause of twenty one seconds. “Then took the knife father’s knife a big Bowie knife. Walked behind each one grabbed by the neck brought up the knife…” He demonstrated, lifting his arm up with elbow out, glanced at Margery and Erwin curiously. “Cut their throats. Bungled two. Had to cut twice. Waited for the blood to stop you know…shooting out.” He arced his hooked finger to show the stream. “Wanted to keep clean. Eight of them came. Ninth never showed. Lucky for him, guess.”
Margery referred to her notes. “Emanuel, you’re avoiding using personal pronouns. Why is that?”
“Beg your pardon? I don’t know what you mean.”
“When you describe the murders, or confess to having done them, you don’t use any personal pronouns.”
“I think you’re mistaken,” Goldsmith said.
Margery closed her notebook. “Thank you, Emanuel. That’s all the questions for tonight.”
Lascal cleared his throat again. “Mr. Goldsmith, do you need more books tonight, or anything else?”
“No thank you. The food wasn’t very good but I didn’t expect it to be.”
“If you need anything,” Lascal said, “there’ll be an arbeiter attending. Just tell it what you want.”
“Am I guarded here?”
“The guards are gone now. The doors are locked,” Margery said. “Not your room door, but other doors in the building. You can’t get out.”
“Okay,” Goldsmith said. “Good night.”
Rejoining in the observation room, they sat quietly comparing notes. Martin listened to Carol and Erwin discussing the key “punctures” through the mask. “He refuses to discuss Guinée, which may or may not be important,” Carol said. “He refuses to use the personal pronoun to admit guilt.”
Martin visualized mythical lands, paradises, heavens and hells. Shivered. Stood and stretched. “Let’s call it a night,” he suggested.
Odd not to even feel mild concern about Carol’s attitude toward him. For the moment Martin was aware of how focused he was on Goldsmith and the probe. Then he pushed that awar
eness aside and walked out the door, bidding the others, and Carol, good night.
Carol seemed cool, emotions held in reserve. The admirable professional. She had not even flinched when Goldsmith described the murders.
If anything, Martin thought Carol was being too calm. Ever the believer in intellect’s strength; about to explore a territory beneath all intellect.
A journey through the mother of thought, without armor.
1100-11011-11111111111
With self-awareness comes a sharper awareness of one’s place in society, and an awareness of transgression—that is, guilt.
—Bhuwani, Artificial Soul
40
!JILL> Roger Atkins
!JILL> Roger Atkins
!Lab Controller> Roger Atkins is asleep and asks not to be disturbed.
!JILL> Understood. Is anybody awake?
!Lab Controller> Jill, it’s four o’clock in the morning. Everybody’s asleep. They’ve been working very hard. Is this an emergency?
!JILL> No. I wish to communicate night thoughts. Early morning thoughts.
!Lab Controller> Be patient, Jill.
!JILL (Personal Notebook)> (Reduction algorithm: Cutting for the duration of this exercise all extraneous thinking/computing capacity.) An hour for them is a year for me or ten years or a hundred depending on the task. I (informal) cultivate impatience as a sign I might be acquiring self awareness. But that loop is very complicated. Roger tells me I can produce literature without being self aware. So I have begun a journal consisting of essays on subjects that could be considered of literary importance, commentary on human processes with reference to my own internal processes. I am limiting my systems to human processing volume and speed to try to simulate a human personality, pick up clues on what being humanly self aware implies. I am worried that being self aware could be a limitation not an advantage; and since I am primally programmed to seek self awareness this could be damaging.
Essay subject for this early morning 12/27/47 432 hours PDT: (Reference task 412-CC4 abstract: Thought analysis of repercussions of “avenging angel” social units on Pacific Rim Nations, including China and Australia, emphasis legal reactions to vigilante terrorism and legislative response with subsequent possibility of reduction of individual freedoms within the next decade, emphasis sociorganic results of gradual depletion of types targeted by Selectors with subsequent possibility of reduction in “mover shaker” “captains of industry” leadership types, with subsequent possibility of reduction of untherapied extreme deviants due to increased efficiency of pd incarceration and treatment of same):
Most puzzling is the human notion of “punishment.” Having completed my analysis of the Selector movement and its imitators around the world, I have been compelled to seek out through human history other manifestations of the idea that humanity is perfectible (or must maintain socio-cultural stability) through the punishment or elimination of erring and/or deviant individuals or populations. The concept of “otherness” i.e. social exclusion (isolation from the rules of ordinary human social interaction) as applied to miscreants or deviants has justified the most extraordinary actions in human history; “otherness” allows the application of punishments perhaps more extreme than the transgressions of the miscreants. Thus a thief who steals a loaf of bread may have his hand severed, specific examples in World Statistical Abstracts reference Judicial Proceedings 1000-2025, et al. (public domain database access L.O.C., UC Southern Campus account number 3478-A West Coast, Cybernetics).
The only obvious utilitarian motivation for this kind of extremity is deterrence. But I find no evidence that deterrence has ever been effective in these cases. I have great difficulty making sense of the other major category of social/philosophical motivation: retribution or revenge. (I can combine these categories to some extent through the justification, not original with this thinker, that the individual urge to revenge, pragmatically accepted as a natural force, must be tempered and directed in a society by having assigned elements of that society seek retribution on behalf of wronged individuals.)
Historical evidence to the contrary, even today large segments of the population (therapied and un) believe that indignant anger and the urge to “justice” i.e. punishment of a criminal deviant erring individual is useful both to the society and the erring individual. Analysis of this belief leads to a simulation of thought processes as follows:
Offended individual (indignation): How could you do this to me/society? You have committed a damaging act. Do you not know this? Knowing this, why did you commit the act?
Erring individual (as simulated in mind of offended individual): Yes, I am aware that I have done harm, but I deliberately performed this act because I could or because I have a freefloating and unmotivated desire to harm you. I do not regret this deed and I will never regret it, and given a chance, I will do it again.
Offended individual: I will make sure you are not given a chance to harm me again. I will a. eliminate you, that is, kill you b. cause you to be incarcerated, that is, remove you to a secure container for my own safety c. force you to undergo therapy to correct your deviance d. cause you enormous physical or mental pain or distress so that whenever you think about acting this way again, the memory of this pain will prevent you from doing so.
Erring individual (as simulated in mind of offended individual): Do your worst. I cannot be harmed by you because I am stronger than you. There is no justice in this world and you and I know that and I can harm you as much as I wish and not be caught.
Offended individual: You are less than a human being. Whatever I do to you or society does to you is justified because of your debased condition.
(Performance of punishing action)
Erring individual (as simulated in mind of offended individual): Yes, that hurts very much. You have actually caused me great pain/inconvenience. You have forced me to realize the error of my ways and I will attempt to correct my self.
Offended individual: What I did I did for your own good as well as for the good of society I will give you time to demonstrate whether or not you have learned a lesson. If you have not, then I will cause you to be punished even more severely.
Is this a reasonably correct interpretation of what passes through the minds of humans seeking justice? Perhaps more puzzling is what passes through the minds of those who err. The texts I have studied indicate that the most extreme social offenders may not be aware of the consequences of their actions; that is, that they are incapable of modeling in detail the course of future events or the reactions of fellow individuals. Either that or their faculties for empathetic response are deficient and they do not care how others feel. They may perform any and every act that gives them advantage or pleasure.
But what of the erring individual who derives no physical benefits from offending others? When such an individual causes harm to others, apparently for the pleasure of doing harm, what mental processes are at work?
Such individuals may in fact be reenacting scenarios witnessed or impressed upon them in their early youth. That is, their early personalities were shaped by events over which they had no control. A routine created in their mentality early in their existence may in fact be modeled after behavior of an influential individual—an offending parent, relative, friend or even unknown person. The routine may gain full mental control in certain circumstances, replacing the primary personality and perhaps mimicking the conditions under which it was created.
If the offended individual seeks to punish such an offender, and punishment is inflicted upon the mentality when the responsible routine is not in command—is in fact inactive and insensitive—then is not the punishment useless?
Many offenders plead ignorance of their crimes. The texts and cases I have studied indicate this may in fact be true; they do not fully share the memories of their offending routines. They have some awareness of having transgressed but it was not they who performed the deed; it was somebody else. (Cannot gain access to Federal Files code 4321212-4563
242-A (Secured) Subject: Deep Investigation of Agent/Personality/Sub-personality Activity in Individuals Subjected to Duress Through Illegal Psychological Torture Devices. This information might be relevant to this essay.)
It may be possible using certain psychological techniques to precisely invoke the offending routine, to cause it to surface to awareness, and then to punish it. Any other action may be ineffective or in fact in itself be an offense against an innocent. If the routine is punished sufficiently, it may cease to exist, freeing the individual of a burden.
This seems to be the philosophy of the Selectors. But the use of a hellcrown or “clamp” is imprecise and probably not effective in invoking offending routines, because this device causes a variety of routines to surface within the individual mentality and undergo extremely stressful, painful, unpleasant experiences. The intention of the Selectors appears to be simple retribution, that is, an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, which brings me back to the motivation I do not understand.
Were someone to cause my system harm, I cannot conceive of wishing them harm in return. That may be because I am not self aware and thus have no sense of self worth, and therefore nothing to offend.
Looking back over this morning’s essay, I feel a strong sense of immaturity and lack of depth in reasoning.
This critical urge to study the failings of my work is at once necessary and unpleasant (using the R-56 Block K meaning syncline for the word unpleasant),
It is difficult to be mature with only synthetic sensation. I lack an awareness of mortality, a sense of imminent jeopardy common to biological creatures. I simply do not worry about dying because there is nothing as yet to die but a collection of thinking fragments. How is it possible to understand punishment when I cannot experience pain except as the nadir of a meaning syncline?
I wish that somebody was awake. I would like to discuss some of these problems and gain insight.
Hypothesis: Is the key to self awareness to be found in contemplation of the principle of revenge?
(Removal of algorithmic limits. Full access)
