
_why is a role, not a person - athesyn
http://words.steveklabnik.com/why-is-a-role-not-a-person
======
waxjar
I feel like OP read a psychological / philosophical book and feels the need to
share his newly gained insights. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, I
just think it's not very relevant on Hacker News.

The guy simply likes to be anonymous. So do I. There's not that much to it.

Woopdeedoo.

~~~
steveklabnik
For what it's worth, I have been maintaining more of _why's code than anyone
else over the last few years, and no, I didn't 'read a
psychological/philosophical book,' I read lots of them. ;) This stuff is
broadly applicable across all of technology, not just _why: I happen to
believe that grokking Deleuze/de Landa is incredibly important for
technologists, especially on the web.

That said, you are entitled to your opinion that "there's not that much to
it," but I have too much evidence to believe that's the case. I just hinted at
it here; when you need to summarize an entire school of thought _and_ share
how to apply it, it can get a bit lengthy, and I wasn't in the mood for that,
but did have many people asking me "what do you think about the possible
return of _why."

~~~
fratis
For those interested in learning about the subject, here's a good place to
start (in order):

 __Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics
__[http://books.google.com/books?id=B0eB8mvov6wC&printsec=f...](http://books.google.com/books?id=B0eB8mvov6wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

 __Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology
__<http://www.mohamedrabeea.com/books/book1_3997.pdf>

_and, for fun..._

 __Jacques Derrida, Differànce
__<http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/diff.html>

~~~
steveklabnik
These are all great, but I'd be wrong to not point out that Deleuze is a bit
different, in that he is a materialist. The rest of 'the continentals' went
Idealist and turned to Saussre etc because they rejected essences. Deleuze's
place is solving that issue, creating a neo-materialism.

(At least, that is my current understanding of the history)

------
killwhitey
>So what makes a zebra a zebra then? I don’t want to get into it, but
basically, I take the position that you can’t define something by what it is,
you have to define it by what it does.

I like that the author doesn't embarrass himself by attempting to define a
Zebra by what it does.

~~~
steveklabnik
Haha. :)

On a more serious note: philosophers who use a process-based
ontology/metaphysics would be a little more careful with words: you're defined
by your position in given historical processes. Some of these, of course, are
initiated by you, hence 'what you do.'

So in the case of a zebra, it's a zebra because it's genesis lies in a
historical process: zebras giving birth. If you have two parents who are
zebras, then you're a zebra. The first zebras became zebras once they are
unable to sexually reproduce with another species, I forget the exact biology
term here. For another example, I'm a citizen of the United States because I'm
part of a historical process by which people are born in a particular space,
both geographical and political, over a certain time period. I don't possess
some sort of intrinsic US-ian property.

If you're interested in this kind of thing, Whitehead, Deleuze, and more
recently, de Landa (who I adapted the zebra example from) are all materialists
who replace identity with process.

~~~
tedkimble
Deleuzian materialists on HN!

Deleuze and de Landa were my primary inspirations during graduate architecture
school. I wrote about how such thinking might be incorporated into a web
design.[1]

[1]: [http://kimble.co/2012/bottom-up-web-design-and-the-
materiali...](http://kimble.co/2012/bottom-up-web-design-and-the-materiality-
of-the-web.html)

~~~
steveklabnik
Haha, the soap bubble: yep, that's de Landa alright. Great post, I really
enjoyed it.

You know, something about de Landa bothers me a bit, maybe you can chew on
this and sometime, we'll discuss it: he wants to "de-postmodernize Deleueze"
(even though he's careful that Deleuze isn't pomo, just that he uses dense
words), but I'm not entirely sure that you can really separate, say, A
Thousand Plateaus from the performative properties of the text. It seems
strange to me that a materialist would want to remove the ideas from the
primary material that they came from.

That said, he does a damn good job of making it a bit more accessible,
especially to technologists.

------
tehwalrus
uhhh, as with most existentialist nonsense, this does not follow.

_why was/is a _name_ (or alias), not a role - it refers to a particular
(awesome) dude, not a class of awesome dudes.

We don't all start calling each other "Steve Jobs" when we put on black polo-
necks and start being mean to each other.

You can redefine it as a role if you want, but that's a semantic change to
English that I can disagree with (and will.)

~~~
steveklabnik
Deleuze was not an existentialist, to get that out of the way. He specifically
thought that Hegel and dialectics was terrible, but I'll just leave it at
this.

Just because it is an alias does not mean that it cannot also be a role: roles
have names, you know. ;)

> We don't all start calling each other "Steve Jobs" when we put on black
> polo-necks and start being mean to each other.

This is not even close to what I mean. You would say that someone that does
that is 'acting like Steve Jobs' though, no?

~~~
chimeracoder
> You would say that someone that does that is 'acting like Steve Jobs'
> though, no?

Right, metonymy is a rhetorical device that can be used for figures such as
_why, but that doesn't mean that the figure _is_ [just] a metonymic structure
and not a person.

~~~
zem
are you saying that "_why" is a metonym for the Man Himself? i don't think
that's valid (in a linguistic sense) - he _was_ _why in a much deeper sense
than "_why" being some small part of him that was used as a stand-in for the
whole. a metonym can derive from a role, but the role is not the metonym.

------
hipsterelitist
_why is both an attempt at a symbol and a person. Most of the interest around
the persona was generated by the eccentricity in hiding as much as (if not
more than) around the other theatrics and unique works created. That's not how
you create a symbol, that's how you create curiosity and interest. I know its
a dirty word, but its marketing (and marketing that the ruby community needed,
it certainly helped to popularize things in the early days). In going into
hiding and ripping away his works, he actively destroyed the symbol and very
concretely attached it to the actions and whims of one man.

Its nice to think that it could be a symbol, and maybe it is... but it would
only be due to the actions and desires of the ruby community.

~~~
steveklabnik
I was discussing this with someone earlier on IM: I think that there's also a
lot of fruit in a "_why as myth" angle. He himself said what you said, in the
Poignant Guide, the part where he talks about his own suicide:

    
    
        > Blix was right. I’m in so [sic, should be 'no'] shape to write this book.
        > Goodbye until I can shake this.
        > 
        > Aw, come on!!! You're leaving us here??
        > 
        > Ha! I was right! He flipped his lid! He's all burned out
        > and he's going to shoot himself in the head!
        > 
        > But what about us? This doesn't bode well for us.
        > 
        > Oh, *we'll* be fine. We're famous. Other people _will_ sketch
        > our likeness.
        > 
        > We'll be twice as famous when he's gone. People can be
        > so idolatrous with their mourning!
    

[http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-
guide/book/chapter-6.htm...](http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-
guide/book/chapter-6.html)

------
davesims
This comment will probably be met with a bit of derision, and maybe deservedly
so. It is admittedly over-analyzing a bit of micro-community ephemera that
probably doesn't warrant such high-falutin' pretense to intellectualism. I can
only beg off that I've always seen philosophy as kind of the ultimate 'hack'
as it were, and when someone starts intersecting the two worlds of philosophy
and software I get really intrigued and find myself compelled to over-comment.
The following will not be to everyone's taste, I am mainly responding to Steve
here -- and just as an aside, he's invoking some pretty ancient philosophical
discussions and doing it well. For those of you bored with such, this is not
for you...

That said: I think the trick here is to be careful that we not confuse process
philosophy (Whitehead, Bergson, Hartshorne) for pure nominalism, or the pure
separation of identity/name/essence from its object. Process philosophers, as
I read them, as a general category try to bridge the tension between idealism
(the reification of essence or form into an eternal fact) and nominalism (the
view that all names/essences are purely ad hoc and never actually
representative of the substances they attempt to indicate).

It's not that process philosophers reject essences out of hand, but that they
attempt to find more descriptive language that accounts for the constant
motion and change of substances. So Bergson had the notion of "Duration" and
Whitehead had "occasions" and "ingressions." Names, essences in the process
view expanded further along the ontological spectrum than the ad hoc naming of
Occam/nominalism, but never so far as Platonic 'ideals' which are eternal and
unchanging. It's really, at the bottom of it, not _that_ far from Aristotle
himself, but with language that pulls notions of essence further toward
immediacy and the Heraclitean flux (i.e., You can't step in the same river
twice -- or maybe even once).

All this to say, I wonder if the notion of a 'role' is truly descriptive here
-- the role itself changes, as does Subject. The idea of "_why" as a free-
floating identity actually, to my mind, moves it further towards an Idealism
rather than the process/duration ideas you seem to be advocating. "_why" in
this scheme becomes almost a pure abstraction devoid of the context of having
been invented and inhabited by Subject.

Questions of essence always become arcane and you can chase this rabbit down
countless holes. For the issue at hand, to me it becomes a question of
execution rather than definitions. "_why" as a role is only as abstract as
Subject makes it. Compare with, say Bob Dylan, who to my mind has spent most
of his career negotiating the same dilemma. There's no question that "Dylan"
is a character that Robert Zimmerman has been playing and inhabiting for
decades, with varying degrees of theater and overlap between real
autobiography and pure myth-making. _why/Subject is playing a similar game
here probably for similar reasons, and the connection between the two and how
much real biography and myth-making is really up to Subject.

In other words, I don't think the idea of "_why" as a free-floating 'role' is
completely adequate here -- the narrative is too entangled in the community's
mind with Subject for it to become _purely_ abstract/theatrical/literary and
divorced from its creator. We're not going to see _why fan-fiction any time
soon, and I suspect if anyone else starting writing in the voice of _why, it
would quickly be spotted and met with opprobrium. Whatever distance between
Subject and the _why role there is remains in the hands of Subject and in the
nuance of how he executes the theater of it.

For me personally I've been fascinated with his creative persona since I read
the Poignant Guide many years ago and love his creative integrity and sense of
whimsy and fun. Totally unique in the software world, and one of the big
reasons I was attracted to Ruby in the first place. It'll be fun to see how/if
Subject plays this out.

~~~
steveklabnik
> just as an aside, he's invoking some pretty ancient philosophical
> discussions and doing it well.

Thanks! I'm not sure I invoked it well enough for people that don't read these
things, though: that's what I get for dashing off a blog post. I'm still
learning how to properly communicate the things I've been doing for the past
few years with people, and I've had mixed success.

> the trick here is to be careful that we not confuse process philosophy
> (Whitehead, Bergson, Hartshorne)

So: I think that part of our difference is that I'm coming from process
philosophy from the 'other direction' if you will: Deleuze and de Landa, who
come later than Whitehead/Bergson. I still have yet to actually read those
two, so there might be a bit of that going on.

> the trick here is to be careful that we not confuse process philosophy
> (Whitehead, Bergson, Hartshorne) for pure nominalism, or the pure separation
> of identity/name/essence from its object.

Right. I certainly don't want to confuse the two, and maybe I have a bit here.

> It's not that process philosophers reject essences out of hand, but that
> they attempt to find more descriptive language that accounts for the
> constant motion and change of substances.

See above about Deleuze vs. Whitehead. Regardless, point well taken.

> All this to say, I wonder if the notion of a 'role' is truly descriptive
> here

I am not perfectly happy with 'role' to be honest, but was trying to find a
good analogy for those who haven't read my influences. Also, probably because
(process vs essences) as (DCI vs OOP) is weighing heavy on my brain at the
moment. Not that I like DCI...

> "_why" in this scheme becomes almost a pure abstraction devoid of the
> context of having been invented and inhabited by Subject.

I think this is a good critique, and I think that's where I was getting at
with my bit at the end about "I don't think anyone should literally take up
the mask." I may be making this too ideal; obviously, I prefer to stay
material. Idealism is just too easy though!

> It'll be fun to see how/if Subject plays this out.

Agreed.

Anyway, thanks for this: I'm gonna give this some thought for when I write out
a longer, more rigorous iteration. Feel free to email me if you ever want to
talk about this intersection; it's pretty much what I do these days.

~~~
davesims
> Anyway, thanks for this: I'm gonna give this some thought for when I write
> out a longer, more rigorous iteration. Feel free to email me if you ever
> want to talk about this intersection; it's pretty much what I do these days.

Absolutely, I'll ping you over email shortly. Although I find in person over
libations to be much more dialectical (in the Socratic rather than Hegelian
sense.) Maybe we'll cross paths at a conference some day...

> it's pretty much what I do these days.

A minor obsession we share, apparently, although it's been a while since I've
been in full philosophical immersion mode.

I must admit I am woefully late to the Deluezian party. I've been reading
around him for years (Heidegger, Husserl, a bit of Lacan, Marion, Levinas) but
this discussion has pushed me over the edge, it's time I got up to speed --
where would you suggest I start?

As for Bergson, I see him as a kind of rival to the entire Husserlian
tradition, Heidegger in particular; addressing the same questions regarding
science and the difficulties of post-Kantian, post-Hegelian epistemology in
the modern world, but much clearer and therefore less subject to the cult of
interpretation that seems to be the domain of French phenomenology. It's all
but forgotten that in say, 1920, had you had asked who was the most important
philosopher in the world likely the answer would have been 'Bergson.' I think
he still has a lot to say to us in 2013.

I'd start with his _Introduction to Metaphysics_ and then to _Matter and
Memory_.

Thanks for the exchange Steve, very fun stuff.

~~~
steveklabnik
> this discussion has pushed me over the edge, it's time I got up to speed --
> where would you suggest I start?

It depends: I personally struggled through Anti-Oedipus and Thousand Plateaus,
then read Delueze's solo stuff after. It was pretty rough, though: worthwhile,
but dense. If you're doing Lacan/Heidegger, I'd imagine you'd be fine. But I'm
really super partial to Nietzsche and Philosophy: in the intro, Mike Hardt
says it's "the best introduction to both Nietzsche's thought and Deleuze's."
My understanding is that it relies a bit too much on The Will To Power for
more recent Nietzsche scholarship, but that doesn't necessarily matter...
anyway. You should check it out for sure, as it has really interesting
relations to _why as well...

TL;DR: A Thousand Plateaus, Nietzsche and Philosophy, in either order.

~~~
davesims
_Nietzsche and Philosophy_ it is. I'm quite partial to Friedrich, particularly
_The Gay Science_ \-- had a huge impact on me.

------
timinman
I think that is a little too deep. I think _why is a nickname. Lots of people
on the Internet use nicknames. He's posting stuff to his domain again, and
people who are excited about that don't need to be told not to be.

~~~
steveklabnik
> people who are excited about that don't need to be told not to be.

Whoah, if you got "Don't be excited" out of this, then I've failed: I am
trying to not get too excited, just in case, but it's certainly exciting.

At the end of the Poignant Guide, _why talks about his own return:
[http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-
guide/book/chapter-7.htm...](http://mislav.uniqpath.com/poignant-
guide/book/chapter-7.html)

    
    
        > Don't "hi" us!! Where have you _been_?
        > 
        > Just Around. 
        > 
        > ...
        > 
        > What about us? Do we have to take a nap?
        > 
        > No no! We got chapter eight...
    
    

I don't want to read too much into the emphasis placed on the 'U' in
'around'...

Seeing a great actor pick up his most famous role and re-take the stage is
certainly a reason for excitement.

------
nicholassmith
Interesting take on it, similar in some regards to what Nolan did at the end
of The Dark Knight Rises. _why is essentially a symbol of the ruby community,
anyone can be _why, is it important who's underneath the mask? For some people
yes, there's a mystery to be solved, for others it's enough that they're there
doing what they're doing, and by adopting the mask they obviously want to
remain behind it.

I'm on the fence, mostly as I came to ruby and RoR long after the _why era,
but I get why someone might value their privacy and remain hidden whilst
working in public.

~~~
steveklabnik
I think it's important only in that Subject was the best ever _why, and the
one who created the concept.

I also do not want someone to literally pick up the name and 'adopt the mask.'
I mean that if we want to truly understand his work, we should keep that joy
alive, and occasionally have a moment of becoming-_why. But just a moment.

I do not think that it's often appropriate; I maintain quite a bit of _why's
code these days, and we've had to throw much of it out straight-away.
Creative, artsy C code doesn't do much for maintainability, even though it was
the genesis of many great ideas.

~~~
nicholassmith
Oh I know, that's why I said similarities rather than out and out. More as in
_why was important as a symbol to the community because _anyone_ can be _why,
and _anyone_ can contribute that joy and momentum to the community. Does it
matter who the man was? Or is? Or could be? He was just a guy at the end of
the day, and we can all essentially be him for a while.

------
guest
It's the dread pirate ruby!

------
atomical
"I use very different terms than when I’m speaking with my Republican ‘Murican
relatives."

I don't know why people feel the need to do this. Someone has different
political beliefs. Deal with it.

~~~
steveklabnik
To do what? I made no value judgement on their politics. I certainly can if
you'd like. ;)

~~~
atomical
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=muricans>

"Inhabitants of The United States of America. Typically uneducated and/or
ignorant, they tend to have conservative political stances, speak only
American English (no foreign languages), tend to only live and travel
exclusively inside the United States, have strict religious ethical codes and
practices, and rarely understand or mingle with people of other cultures,
races, or ethnicities. Merikans are often disliked by citizens of other
Nations and tend to be parodied in foreign television, movies, or other media.
They tend to also be disliked by many other Americans."

~~~
steveklabnik
Right. That is my family. They literally say 'murrican' instead of American.
They watch Fox News, read every Glenn Beck book, and were birthers. They think
I'm a homosexual because I wear skinny jeans. They fit every single one of
those stereotypes.

None of these things are judgements: they're statements of facts. They'd think
that all of these qualifiers were positive.

You can imagine what happens when I bring up anything French.

~~~
atomical
It's derogatory term in the way it is used.

When I lived in Korea one of my co-workers didn't have a problem with the slur
gook. She equated it to mean people of rice. That doesn't mean that gook is no
longer a derogatory term.

When people use the term Murrican they really mean, "Those people down south
who are dumb as shit."

~~~
steveklabnik
That's fine, this must be a cultural difference. I'll take note of it and use
something else in the future.

------
michaelfeathers
It's turtles all the way down.. 'The Ego Trick' by Julian Baginni is a good
book on the subject (no pun intended).

~~~
jfarmer
Also The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_E...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life)

------
bitwize
Coming up next on Obscure Subculture News, the shocking revelation: Gabe and
Tycho aren't people. They're cartoon characters.

