The deal that sent organic traffic to your website for free has almost entirely collapsed. It is gone. It is not coming back. And the sooner we come to our senses and stop wasting time and effort on futile optimisation, the sooner we can focus on more productive things.

In a famous scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur comes upon a bridge guarded by the Black Knight. In the ensuing fight, the Black Knight steadfastly refuses to yield, even after being dismembered, insisting “‘tis but a scratch!”

I recalled this as I received the latest of many similar emails. This one invited me to a webinar called “From Backlinks to Frontlinks”. Apparently, I would learn “what organisations should actually measure in the AI era”, and that “the brands that win over the next few years won't simply rank higher. They'll become the brands AI trusts enough to recommend.” All of which is, to put it politely, complete horseshit.

This latest missive crystallised my ongoing misgivings about this new phase of SEO (GEO?, AEO?, pick an acronym), something I've spent my whole career working on in various capacities. The scales finally fell from my eyes, and I realised that the entire premise of organic search optimisation is not changing; it is broken beyond repair.

One admission before I start. Most of the data I am about to cite comes from companies that sell search or AI visibility tooling. Ahrefs, Semrush, SE Ranking and BrightEdge all have a commercial interest in how large and how tractable this channel appears. I use their numbers because, at this scale, there is nothing else, and I have tried to indicate where the commercial incentive lies in each case. Apply the same suspicion to my argument that I am asking you to apply to theirs.

The Faustian pact

For a quarter of a century, organic search ran as a kind of implicit barter. You produced content at your own expense, let the search engine crawler index it, dutifully marked it up as specified, and in return, mostly Google (other search engines were available!) sent some number of visitors back. The only costs were producing the content, maintaining the site, and any additional efforts you made to optimise it.

Much time and effort were expended on the optimisation part, trying to move up the organic search rankings through fair means and, occasionally, foul. Because even a single place improvement could deliver a meaningful increase in traffic, some portion of which would convert or buy or do whatever the thing you wanted them to do was.

Less sophisticated organisations saw this traffic as free. Others saw it for what it was and mapped it to things like human effort and agency expenditure, so any benefit could be assessed alongside other traffic acquisition channels with more directly measurable costs. But this world has now fundamentally changed with the migration of search to AI agents.

Pew Research tracked 68,879 searches from 900 US adults in March 2025 and found that 18% triggered an AI summary. When the summary appeared, users clicked a traditional result 8% of the time, versus 15% without one.

SparkToro and Similarweb put the US zero-click rate at 68% for the first four months of 2026, up from 60.45% in 2024. Bain's February 2025 consumer research put the consequence at a 15% to 25% fall in organic traffic across many sectors. Chartbeat data covering more than 2,500 news sites, shared with Axios, found Google Search referrals down 34% year-on-year, with small publishers losing 60% of search referrals over two years, versus 22% for large ones.

So your side of the organic search bargain has not changed at all. You still write the content, still ship the schema, still let the crawler do its prosaic work. Only now, the other half of the bargain, the traffic received in return, has collapsed dramatically. The natural reaction is to panic and look for a quick fix, which is what has brought the usual shysters out of the woodwork, claiming easy solutions and techniques.

Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode are now default features of Search. They run on Googlebot, and the Search index, and the only levers that affect them are nosnippet and max-snippet, which also remove your ordinary search snippets and destroy your click-through rate. You cannot leave the AI layer without leaving Search altogether (you can exclude your content from Gemini training without a search penalty, however).

If this is not your first rodeo, you may recall E-A-T, a previous era where we spent a great deal of time and effort convincing ourselves it was a dial we could turn, a score we could improve by demonstrating Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness so the algorithm would bestow additional blessings. You'd be forgiven for noticing the eerie similarity to current “optimise for citation” advice.

Such was the noise, Google was forced into a rare comment in December 2022, that these kinds of quality rater guidelines “don't directly influence ranking”. Gary Illyes, then a Webmaster Trends Analyst at Google, had already explicitly told PubCon Las Vegas in October 2019 that there is no internal E-A-T score and no E-A-T element correlates meaningfully to the algorithm. Yet much of the SEO field kept its fingers in its ears and pushed on regardless, desperate for some variable, any variable, to optimise.

The tiny little prize

For argument's sake, let's pretend the current AI search optimisation industry is right and you can successfully manipulate your way into being consistently cited in AI answers. Before you break out the champagne, look at what that citation is worth. In the same Pew dataset linked above, among visits in which a Google AI summary appeared, the share of visits in which a user clicked a source cited in the summary was 1%. That’s one in a hundred, and Pew only counted the first three cited links.

True, that number is specific to Google AI Overviews in March 2025, and other assistants do behave differently. ChatGPT referrals jumped sharply after clickable brand links shipped in May 2026. But the overall direction of travel is not in dispute. Just put it beside the channel it is supposed to replace. SE Ranking's analysis of 101,574 sites measures AI referral traffic at 0.32% of all website visits for January to April 2026, compared with 42.75% for organic search of all kinds. Around 134 times more visitors from search than from every AI platform combined.

Two important caveats: SE Ranking's number sits at the low end of the published range. Conductor, analysing 13,770 enterprise domains, put AI referral traffic at 1.08%, roughly three times higher. And referrer-based measurement and attribution are structurally blind to most of what an AI answer does, because a visitor who reads about you in ChatGPT and then types your name into Google arrives tagged as branded organic or direct, breaking the attribution. But even if you take the highest credible figure and grant the measurement problem in full, it is still a rounding error compared to search.

Despite this, Rand Fishkin estimated in January 2026 that over $100m a year was already going into AI visibility tracking alone. It is just an estimate, but it sits alongside agency retainers, consultants and the usual conference circuit suspects and LinkedIn Lunatics, all telling you this problem is both traceable and solvable.

Let's look at a known positive for a moment: AI referral visitors do genuinely seem to convert well. Semrush's June 2025 study across more than 500 digital marketing and SEO topics found that the average AI search visitor was worth 4.4 times that of a traditional organic visitor, measured by conversion rates. Note the base: one industry vertical, chosen by a company that sells AI visibility tooling and owns Search Engine Land.

But you do not need a Fields Medal to calculate that a 4-to-5x conversion multiplier on a channel delivering around 1% of visits is still a minuscule absolute number. What often follows is the hand-waving argument that it's all very new, and that low volume with strong growth and high conversion quality is the profile of a promising early channel.

And here is where we get to the nub of the issue: every user an AI answer engine sends off-platform is a missed opportunity for an ad, a follow-up prompt, or a subscription upsell. For Google, AI Overviews are designed and optimised specifically to create a broader advertising surface rather than send traffic out to your site.

[With AI Overviews] free organic traffic from search fell by 40%. Paid traffic held steady. If your free visitors from Google are disappearing, the route Google left open is the one you pay for, and that was clearly not an accident.

For OpenAI, which is building an increasingly sophisticated ad business of its own and burns money on every query, the incentive is even starker. These companies are not distribution platforms that happen to summarise. In search terms, they are answer engines whose economics depend on not referring a user away. Most other platforms work the same way. Including an external link on X or LinkedIn posts is a sure-fire way to get buried.

I find the hardest part of all of this is accepting that the Google of 2026 is a fundamentally different beast from the one we have lived with for a generation. It’s like we’ve been in a long-term relationship with a partner who, despite their flaws, we’ve generally coexisted with quite happily.

Now that partner has left us, it’s easier to see the patterns of their behaviour that should have been obvious for years. Featured snippets, knowledge panels, “People Also Ask” boxes, shopping units, and four stacked ads. Each iteration squeezed the truly organic links. AI Overviews are not so much a departure from this trajectory as its zenith.

Even the remaining organic share is rapidly eroding as Google expands its own AI layers. Every study measuring click-through rate when an AI Overview appears has found a steep decline, though the magnitude depends heavily on the method and the type of search. Ahrefs measured a 34.5% drop for top-ranking pages in April 2025 and 58% by February 2026. Seer Interactive, tracking 25.1 million impressions across 42 organisations, found that organic CTR on AI Overview queries fell by 61%, from 1.76% to 0.61%. Amsive, across 700,000 keywords, found around 15%. Pick your methodology, and the answer moves by a factor of four, which tells you something about the validity of any platform claiming to be able to reliably monitor this space.

The damage to publishers is easier to see. Growtika's analysis of ten major tech titles found combined US organic traffic falling from 112 million monthly visits to 47 million, with Digital Trends dropping from 8.5 million monthly Google clicks in March 2024 to 264,861 in January 2026. The figures are Ahrefs traffic estimates rather than publisher analytics, and Google called the analysis fundamentally flawed. Digital Trends also laid off most of its full-time staff in early 2025, so its 97% is not a clean read on AI Overviews. The Verge, How-To Geek, and ZDNet each losing more than 85% over the same period is harder to explain away as flawed methodology.

So any growth curve for organic AI referrals (if there is one at all) appears to have an inbuilt ceiling set by the platform owners. It will only be allowed to exist at whatever level they decide, based on their commercial goals, and nothing you can do will change that. How many entities on the open web survive this transition remains to be seen, but based on current data, it does not look promising.

Say what you like about Meta, but when they decided to dramatically throttle brands' organic reach on Facebook between 2014 and 2016, at least the direction was unmistakable (which is not the same as transparent). Others are now belatedly following suit.

It is particularly awkward for Google, a company that built itself on the open web and harvested great riches, to be playing such an active role in destroying it. Small wonder they hide behind complexity, weasel words and methodological quibbling. It’s not a good look so they just hope it’s all too confusing or boring for most people to care until it’s too late.

Nobody knows how AI sources get chosen

Suppose you accept the bad maths. Suppose you argue that aggregators like Google will let organic referrals grow over time, even though that runs directly counter to their commercial interests. Suppose, then, that there is some value in spending your time trying to influence your appearance in this mythical future organic AI search segment.

You still need a mechanism — something you can do that reliably changes where, or whether, you appear in the answers. SEO had more than its fair share of snake oil, tricks, and techniques, but it eventually boiled down to “have a well-structured, performant site with helpful, unique content that solves problems for users.” That still applies. When it comes to appearing in AI search results, there is no other evidence-based method that moves the needle.

Worse, the waters between optimising for traditional search engines and AI search agents have been muddied, but they work in fundamentally different ways. Ahrefs sketches the retrieval process in its own research. An AI assistant rarely searches for the question you typed. It expands your prompt into a spray of related sub-queries — the fan-out — retrieves documents for each, then merges the resulting lists. Ahrefs offers Reciprocal Rank Fusion as one plausible mechanism for that merge, a formula that rewards pages turning up consistently across several retrievals. Google has confirmed the fan-out; nobody has confirmed the fusion, which is at best educated guesswork.

Surfer found that when an AI Overview cites something that does rank, it is ranking for a fan-out and not the main query 29.2% of the time, against 19.6% the other way round. So fan-outs appear to matter more than the head term.

But that still does not give you a target list. The expansion is not stable, which is why Fishkin’s volunteers received the same set of recommendations less than once in a hundred. Reading it once gives you a sample of one from a distribution nobody has published. The queries are long-tail enough that most have no measurable volume, so they do not exist as rows in a keyword tool. And each engine runs a different index, so “rank for these” needs a WHERE clause. Ahrefs found Perplexity overlapping Google’s top ten around 29% of the time, compared with 7 to 8% for ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot.

What you can get is a map of the topic space an answer drew on. That is a content gap diagnostic, and it is worth something. But it is not a ranking strategy, even though it is being sold as one.

There is a deeper problem with what follows from this. The merge step itself doesn't assess your credibility. But the candidate documents it merges arrive from ranking systems saturated with quality and authority signals, so the credibility assessment has not disappeared; it has moved upstream and out of sight.

That is worse for you, not better. The judgement you are being sold tools to influence is happening in a layer nobody will describe, at a distance from anything you can observe. So any talk of “becoming a brand AI trusts enough to recommend” is utter bollocks, because there is no trust register to influence or enter.

Alongside the theoretical fragility, the measurement evidence is worse than incomplete. In March 2026, Ahrefs analysed 863,000 keyword SERPs and 4 million URLs, reporting that 37.9% of AI Overview citations came from pages ranking in Google's top 10. In February 2026, BrightEdge measured the same surface and the same relationship, but put it at around 17% and said it had been flat for months. Same quarter, same question, a factor of two apart, and neither publishes a confidence interval. Basically: pick a number, any number.

Cross-engine, it is worse still. Kevin Indig's analysis of 20,000 prompts found that only 2.37% of cited URLs appeared in ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews for the same prompt, while 91% appeared in only one. These are not three rankings of one pool. They are three largely disjointed pools, which makes any single composite visibility score meaningless by construction.

Then there is the question of whether one answer tells you anything at all. A variance-components study published in July 2026 broke down 12,933 LLM responses about 20 brands across eight languages and three models. When measuring sentiment polarity, brand identity accounted for 1.5% of the variance in a single response. The language of the query accounted for 26.5%. Resampling noise accounted for 34.8%. Brand-ranking reliability from a single answer was near 0.01, meaning a single answer carries almost no brand-discriminating signal.

Even read generously, the conclusion is still awkward. There is a real distinction between tracking your position in an answer, which the evidence says is close to pure noise, and heavily sampled aggregate brand measurement across many prompt variations, models and languages, which has a kernel of rigour. The second is what Żatuchin's decision-study allocation describes, which is defensible in principle. Żatuchin's decision-study allocation sets out how to do it, though on sentiment rather than on the visibility metrics that the tools typically report.

It is also expensive; it tops out at a reliability of 0.36, and it is not the product most people are buying. Almost every dashboard on the market reports a position, and even Avinash Kaushik, who is about as thoughtful an advocate for this discipline as exists, names Average Position as one of his three headline KPIs and treats it as the priority opportunity. Fishkin's research says a position in an AI recommendation list is a statistically meaningless snapshot of a probabilistic output. They cannot both be right, and the primary data does not support the dashboards.

So you are trying to optimise for a moving target whose selection rules are unknown, whose outputs are non-deterministic, whose measurements do not replicate across engines, and whose vendor studies disagree by a factor of two within a single quarter. Trying to optimise against those structural realities is panicked madness.

But you do not have to take my word for the last part. Kaushik, in the middle of a detailed methodology walkthrough for a tool he has invested in, reaches the point where the numbers move and he writes: “Coach went down by 3, probably not significant. Kate Spade went up by 11; that is massive. Why? No idea. We have such little visibility into LLM black boxes, we can only pray to Krishna and Jesus that the next set of weights being used favours our brands.” He also warns his readers that there are lots of magic beans around, and that two tools can both report a Visibility Score while measuring entirely different things.

I wrote about the measurement problem in detail, and here is the short version. The category has raised roughly $300m since mid-2025. The leading platform's own research shows that most cited sources change over time; nobody publishes confidence intervals; and the tools usually measure through an API that does not match the consumer product. What you are paying for is at best a tiny signal in a sea of noise.

The decision that was already made

Maybe you’re a hardened marketer who rode o’the choppy waters of the Penguin and Panda algorithm updates. Maybe, like me, you spent 18 months of your life recovering from a Google de-listing because your predecessor thought it was a good idea to buy £30,000 of backlinks with some spare end-of-year budget. That makes all of this very hard to accept as anything other than another hump in the long road, another challenge to work around.

We become hyper-focused on fixing the agentic search “problem”, because that’s what we’ve always done. And of course, there are no shortage of people trying desperately to flog services and tools that are mostly thinly rebadged SEO approaches desperate to stay relevant. But I sense that perhaps, at some level, even the LinkedIn Lunatics realise their days are numbered.

It’s a lot to process. So step back and return to the fundamentals. Bain's September 2025 work found 85% of B2B buyers purchase from their “day one” list, the vendors they had in mind before searching anything. 6sense's 2025 Buyer Experience Report, based on more than 4,000 buyers, found that the vendor preferred before any seller contact still wins around 80% of deals, and that buyers now purchase from their day one shortlist 95% of the time.

So if we’re scrupulously honest, the search query was never the moment of persuasion. It was the point at which a decision already taken was executed through a search bar, because that was the easiest way to reach a site whose name you already knew. The entire attribution model that credited search with the conversion was misattributing a navigation step as a discovery event. Now that the navigation step has effectively been removed, it is plain to see.

There is a counterargument that if day-one lists determine the outcome, and those lists are formed before anyone searches, then a citation that produces no clicks could still be doing work. Appearing in the answer might seed the list. Clicks would therefore be the wrong yardstick. I think this is partly true, and it is the strongest thing the search optimisation industry currently has.

It is also what makes any product unsellable. If the value of a citation is brand memory formed off-platform, months before a purchase, then you cannot attribute it, you cannot measure it on a dashboard, and, based on the evidence above, you cannot reliably steer your position in it. You are being sold a whizzy dial, but there is no wiring behind it.

There may well be an effect, and if there is, the sensible response to an unattributable, unsteerable brand-memory effect is not to buy a subscription. It is to do the things that build brand memory, which we have understood for about seventy years.

People were always getting ready for tomorrow. I didn't believe in that. Tomorrow wasn't getting ready for them. It didn't even know they were there.” Cormac McCarthy, The Road

The only sane reaction is not to cling to the hope that you can somehow master this new world through clever techniques and expensive tools that will staunch the bleed of organic referrals.

Build an audience you can reach without an intermediary, because direct is the only distribution channel where nobody can pull the rug from under you. Publish for humans who will remember your name in a procurement conversation eleven months from now, not for a crawler that keeps the click for itself. Show up in the places those day-one lists get formed: peer networks, communities, review sites, and other people's podcasts. That is much easier said than done. it requires really hard work and focus over a long time. It requires being interesting and different and providing something unarguably excellent.

Or you could spend your time learning the ways that AI is transforming paid advertising with technical tools of a power that was previously unimaginable. In fact, do anything other than try to preserve the flow of organic referrals because you’ve got used to seeing them. Those are permanently gone.

The dismembered torso of Monty Python's Black Knight shouts “I'll bite yer legs off!” defiantly after King Arthur. It is an amusing and enduring emblem of the search optimisation industry steadfastly refusing to give up when the battle is very clearly lost.

I’m feeling at ease, even more relaxed, because what’s meant for me won’t pass me by. I used to say that blindly, but now I know it. Woke up too late and missed a thing? I was supposed to miss it. Took the wrong turn and ended up somewhere else? That was the destination for now. Felt too tired at someplace fun? I was asked to rest. Communication unusually slow and quiet? It’s making space for something new. A friend didn’t follow through on their word? It’s not the time. What’s meant for me comes to me effortlessly. Without me trying. Without me saying a word. If I have to force it, I don’t want it. It’s all good.

In Summary: * When I woke this morning I was pleasantly surprised to find my home wi-fi operating normally. After speaking with a tech guy from my ISP last night I was resigned to having another day without good Internet access. Nice to have things back to normal.

For the last few days I've been able to spend time doing yard work early in the morning before the heat gets intolerable. I'm going to try that again tomorrow morning.

Counting on college football to relax my mind and send me to bed with a good attitude, I'm following a game now between the UMass Minutemen and the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Rutgers is a Big Ten Conference school now, so I'll be cheering for the Scarlet Knights tonight.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 224.1 lbs. * bp= 141/81 (69)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 05:30 – 1 banana * 06:10 – saltines crackers and cheese & meat sauce * 07:10 – 1 slice of lemon meringue pie * 11:45 – lasagna * 14:10 – 1 fresh apple

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 04:15 – listen to local news talk radio * 05:00 – bank accounts activity monitored . * 05:25 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, listen to musc, nap * 10:00 – yard work, picking up and breaking up fallen front yard branches * 11:45 – eat lunch * 12:40 – review correspondence * 14:00 – listen to relaxing music * 15:00 – listening to The Jack Riccardi Show on local AM radio * 17:00 – now following a college football game on WRSU 88.7 FM, Rutgers Radio, the UMass Minutemen vs the Rutgers Scarlet Knights.

Chess: * 08:35 – moved in all pending CC games

Dear Aunt Martha,

When I moved back to the valley, much of my savings went into renovating the old house.  I added central heat and air conditioning, insulated everything,, and upgraded both the kitchen and bathroom, replaced the roof and windows and gutters.  It took months to get everything done and I have only recently settled into it enough that I no longer feel like I am camping out. I suppose you would say that city life spoiled me and I admire the way you lived your life without all the conveniences I feel necessary for comfort.

Then severe storms shut down everything in the valley for several days and I was helpless.  No phone service, no electricity at all, no internet. I had not unpacked the crates of books I shipped here, but found a few Zane Grey novels and a copy of “Smokey the Cowhorse “in the attic.  When I grew tired of reading, I came across the tattered cards you used to teach me Patience when I was in the second grade.

I lit an oil lamp as more thunderstorms boomed outside and spent an evening reminiscing about the quiet times I played the game while you did needlework by lamplight.  I wonder if it originated as symbolic of life and I learned why it was once called”  Patience”.  It’s the same game popularized by Microsoft and now called Klondike Solitaire.

The original layout can be the circumstances we are in or the life we are handed at birth.  We don’t know what is there until we turn them face up.  This reminds me of the Zen attitude of not knowing. The stock pile cards are options we may have and it will change as the contents of the stock pile diminish.

That is a fantasy that we are given in Western capitalist society. If we follow all the rules, we will end up with all our cards in tidy little piles in the Aces’ corner.  Frustration arises when we can’t uncover the cards we want or need and are stuck with incomplete piles. It takes time, observation, and patience to decide where to place cards and when.

Observing my inner world as I played was interesting.  The repetition and steady movements were almost like a ritual as I laid out the cards and drifted into a meditative headspace. I didn’t analyze or build strategy, just watched what arose and dissolved as I played the game, allowing them to settle just as we did when sitting on the cushion during formal meditation.

I was tempted to “cheat” by looking at the facedown cards beforehand and became frustrated when wanting/needing a certain card and it was not available. I was distracted by the interplay of colors and patterns when my need for controlling outcomes became unbearable. Sometimes I noticed the distraction and reminded myself to concentrate on the cards again, drumming up determination to do it correctly instead of wandering off into la-la land and missing obvious openings for card placement. Sometimes I stared at the layout, wondering how the cards would fit, unable to see moves and I was reminded of Roshi telling me to sit more, to keep sitting, when life circumstances were difficult. Eventually, I would see a move that felt obvious once I recognized it.

The desire and need for control were interesting to watch as I chafed against “the rules”. Too often I have tried to play by my own rules and have ended up with a mess.

Roshi and I have often talked about the need for rules and structure to provide parameters within which to work. There is a certain security that comes with observing and respecting boundaries as long as everyone involved agrees on them. Being the lone player in Solitaire is a way to observe our reaction to restrictions without the distraction required to cooperate with a partner or a team.

Electronics has produced a version of Solitaire that is combined with dopamine stimulation and gambling. I wonder what you would have to say about it if you were here for me to show it to you. There are bright colors, animation, and splashy screens as well a tinny, boppy music. Cheating by turning over cards ahead of the ability to play them is impossible. It is designed to entice people to put more money into their accounts to purchase more chances at winning and to induce a fugue state in which discernment and logic are minimized.  I confess to playing it often over the past few years and have wondered if outcomes are deliberately manipulated based on the amount of money in your account. After thousands of games I have played on my phone, I have noticed changes I can only blame on artificial intelligence.  Programmers tell me the cards are shuffled at random, but I tend not to believe it.  Perhaps that is my over perceptive paranoid pattern recognition kicking in.  I haven’t taken the time to record observations and screenshots.

The phone game does not allow for the introspection that manual play with an old deck on a tabletop does.  I hope that by upgrading the old house that I have not done to our history what electronics have done to this card game. I suppose I could justify it by saying that times change and my needs differ from what yours were.  Electronics have expanded my worldview in contrast with yours, which was limited to the immediate county.  This may drift into a contemplation of having no preferences and sameness and differences, too. There are the same rules with different presentations. Is it worth the time and energy to tally up the number of differences that have evolved as social mores have changed? I wonder what you would think of social media.  I don’t dare ask Caleb. I know what his reaction would be, complete with swear words.

I can’t set up a shrine to the past and refuse to change anything, but neither can I overlook current circumstances.  I wonder how many people would be content playing with plain cards versus the electronic game.  And how many younger people these days have ever been taught to play manual games. I remember talking about rules, restrictions, and rebellions with you one time when I was an angsty pre-teen.  You told me that the answer is always somewhere in the middle of two extremes and turned back to mixing up biscuit dough.

I know, I know. I said I would stop writing about this. But I have a couple of updates to share.

One is that the photos of Danny Hillis next to some rocks and Danny Hillis posing puckishly on the bed in the Lolita Express plane that were in the first drop of the Epstein files seem to be from 2002. I had thought the relationship between Hillis and Epstein only dated to 2012, but that’s just as far back as the emails go. So since I am, as far as I can tell, the only person in the world writing about this, I wanted to enter it into the record.

Also, someone else pointed out to me that Danny Hillis took his then-teenage daughter to Epstein’s ranch in 2016. (Keeping track at home? That’s 7 years after Epstein became a convicted sex offender! Would you take your daughter on such a visit?) After their visit, Hillis emailed Epstein to say his daughter enjoyed the visit. Epstein replied “she’s always welcome,” which could of course just be a banal pleasantry. Or it could be something more sinister. I wonder how Hillis took it at the time? Epstein then follows up with “Is she a biological daughter?” which I’m sure we can all agree is an extremely normal thing to ask that certainly doesn’t have any weird implications.

I’m not linking to these emails because the DOJ did not redact the name of Hillis’ daughter from them. My feeling is that if she has something she wishes to say about this visit, she will say it, and otherwise she should be left alone.

Those are the updates. Except for this: I tried editing Hillis’ Wikipedia page to reflect his relationship with Epstein. My edits were rejected, and they patiently explained to me that Wikipedia doesn’t use primary sources. They are a tertiary source by design. In other words, it doesn’t go in Wikipedia until a reliable source writes about it.

So Hillis’ Wikipedia remains pristine because nobody but me has written about his association with Epstein, except for this blink-and-you’ll-miss-it mention in a Scientific American article. I did a search for Hillis’ name, and on the third page of results, there’s a page that inaccurately says Hillis appears in only 4 documents in the Epstein files. So even if you do keep clicking “more results,” after searching for Danny Hillis, the info you’ll get is inaccurate.

Here’s my question: what the hell is going on here? I mean, this is clearly not unique to Hillis; he just happens to be the person I’m interested in because I used to work for him.

There are a lot of people whose names are all over the Epstein files. Some have faced consequences for their association, but most haven’t, and this is at least in part because the media seems to be treating this as a story about Jeffrey Epstein rather than a story about the people he associated with. Which is weird because Epstein is dead and a lot of these other people are still with us.

Sure, sure, nobody but Epstein and Maxwell (well, and the President of the United States) have been accused of a crime, but I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if you’ve built a public profile on being a smart person, the fact that you have a yawning void where your ethics should be out to be part of your public profile. It ought to be part of what people know about you.

But it’s not for Danny Hillis. Unless you are already aware of the association and find one of my blog posts, there’s almost no way to find out about it.

A lot of Epstein’s network was here in Boston. He cultivated relationships with folks affiliated with MIT (Including Danny Hillis) and Harvard in order to give himself a patina of respectability. Why hasn’t the local media done a deep dive into all these people’s association with Epstein?

Why do we have to search through the Epstein files ourselves to find this stuff out? I never would have learned about Danny Hillis’ decades-long association with Epstein if I hadn’t looked at the photos in the first drop. Because nobody’s writing about all the people who were involved, even if, as in the case of Danny Hillis, they are a public figure. (an obscure public figure to most of the general public, but very well known in certain circles.)

Why is the media not holding people’s feet to the fire about their association with a sexual predator and sex trafficker, even if said people weren’t involved in the crimes? Why is no one even asking these people why they hung out with Epstein?

Because journalism is broken and most of our journalists are toadies so thrilled at proximity to power that they don’t want to do anything to mess that up.

Prove me wrong. Please.

Part One: Defining the Undefinable

I’m finding the term Anomalology to be very helpful in my research and investigation into anomalous experiences, including my own. Here’s the definition I’ve been working with for several months now:

Anomalology is the careful study of anomalous experience: experiences that resist easy explanation, and the evidence, language, memory, cultural context, and competing interpretations through which they are understood.

I openly admit that my term, definition, and use directly clash with anomalistic psychology, which studies extraordinary and ostensibly paranormal experiences from a non-paranormal explanatory hypothesis. That branch of psychology sees anomalous experiences as the result of any number of psychological phenomena, including social influence, dissociation, memory error, cognitive bias, sleep disorders, acute psychosis, etc. It also lumps personal accounts and testimony of ghosts, alien abductions, psychic experiences, and other uncanny encounters into a single category.

To be clear, I do have my own anomalous experiences, and so I openly admit that I cannot be, and am not, fully objective in my research and investigations into them, including my own. Furthermore, I do not claim to have had or to be having experiences involving ghosts or extraterrestrials. The paranormal and the extraterrestrial, it would seem, are not a part of my psychospiritual repertoire. Instead, my experiences tend to be more uniform in their extracosmic, heterocosmic, and numinous nature. As such, I do not intend to position myself as any kind of expert or guru. I’m merely a witness sharing that which is generally considered taboo to share and, in so doing, finding a new kind of language to express what I know but have been unable to say.

I also do not intend to use the term Anomalology to position “psychosis” and “reality” against “the anomalous” as though they are opposing, mutually exclusive concepts and circumstances. Instead, I take the more stubborn position of positing that an anomalous encounter can occur in a person who is otherwise psychologically healthy*, admitting that some experiences may arise amid psychosis, trauma, substance abuse, and other circumstances, including severe stress. Such scenarios deserve care, protection, and clinical attention. However, an anomalous encounter alone does not necessarily indicate illness. As such, clinical labels and religious interpretations do not automatically identify a clear, fundamental cause for these experiences. Thus, I see these experiences as deserving ethical attention, especially when a clear external or medical cause cannot be confirmed.

I believe the posture and mindset behind Anomalology would better serve, rather than challenge, psychiatry, because the real danger is diagnostic foreclosure, where a person charged with aiding the witness with their anomalous experience ends their inquiry as soon as they can apply a skeptical, diagnostic, or pathological label. Such an approach is more about expediency and personal bias rather than care.

Diagnostic foreclosure then is the premature closing of inquiry in which the clinical or religious designation is not treated as one contextual observation among others, but as a complete explanation that cancels the witness’s testimony, symbolic interpretation, sociocultural context, and unresolved evidentiary questions.

The opposite of Anomalology, if there is one, is not skepticism or empiricism. It is reductive epistemic closure where a very personal disruptive event is explained by renaming or miscategorizing, and thus hijacking. This robs the witness of their autonomy, agency, and especially their dignity.

My choice of Anomalology is not rooted in my desire to name a specific belief or belief system, branch of superstition or theology, or an indiscriminate catalog of miracles or marvels. I have no such desire. My choice is, more properly, centered on the study of regular phenomena commonly regarded as “abnormal” and the systems of meaning built around them, especially where those systems are incongruent with a witness’s testimony and subsequently begin to fail.

Again, I need to be precise with my position and framing. An anomaly is not simply an event that conventional means cannot explain. Most things referred to as inexplicable are merely incomplete as the result of poor or obstructed observation, poor memory, insufficient contextualization, or premature judgment made strange. The anomalous, I would argue, begins elsewhere. It begins where an occurrence remains intelligible in threads and fragments while refusing intelligibility as a whole, where every available conventional category may describe some piece or portion of the event, but fails to describe and explain the entire testimonial.

Of course, this all leads to the central question: What is real?

This is by far the most important question, though it is not the first one we encounter. The first questions are these: What ontology or belief system did the event interrupt? Where did language fail the event? Who assumed and surrendered authority for framing the event, and what was misinterpreted and lost as a result? What did witnesses alter in their memories out of necessity rather than dishonesty because the mind requires a coherent narrative even if it’s an imperfect one?

Such disturbances are the very concern of Anomalology, because they inhabit the very depths of the psyche—the soul—suggesting that such anomalies are a natural part of human existence. A feature interpreted as a flaw.

“The human definition of the natural world is always going to be too small, because the world’s more diverse and complex than we can ever know. We’re not going to comprehend it; it comprehends us. The question is whether we can use it with respect. Some people in the past who knew very little biology were able to use the land without destroying it. We, who know a great deal of biology, are destroying our land in order to use it.” — Wendell Berry

And I think the same can be said for anomalous experiences: we now know much about psychology and theology, but are destroying our psyches to explain it.

Anomalous experiences are a normal part of the human condition and, therefore, part of nature. The truth is that our metaphysics, science, philosophy, and cosmology are incomplete, and so we struggle with the Truth — our truth and objective truth. Anomalology, then, is merely a branch of the study of human nature and, by extension, Nature itself.

And the ultimate nature of truth may be that, in spite of our best efforts and intentions, it is not just imperceptible, but unknowable.

But we strive for Truth anyway, because that too is natural.

That, too, is human.

#Anomalology

---

* It is a failure of our civilization and culture to dismiss anomalous experiences as mental illness without considering that such experiences may actually be a natural, normal part of the human experience. What if a truly healthy mind is one that can subtly perceive the outer edges of a far greater and not fully comprehensible reality? What if we really don’t know what real is?

---

What is Anomalology?

• Part 1: Defining the Undefinable
• Part 2: Anomalies and Frames

---

By D. Bowman Nomina Numina is a journal of reflections, moments, and meaning-making between worlds. Reply by email.

تاريخ النشر: 2:45 ليلة الجمعة 22 ربيع الأول 1448 | آخر تحديث: 9:50 نهار الجمعة 22 ربيع الأول 1448

مقدمة:

اكتسبت 500 ريالٍ من إحدى المقابلات الوظيفية، واحتسب راتبي من يوم المقابلة وباشرت العمل في اليوم التالي، وأجريت مقابلة وظيفية في مواقف مطعم مشهور، ووقفت على غرائب الإنسان وعجائب الشركات في مقابلات أخرى. فاقرؤوا هذا المقال لتقفوا على تاريخٍ من المقابلات الوظيفية في سبعة أعوامٍ من مساري المهني. قصصٌ تحكى في المجالس الخاصة، وتجتزأ في لينكدن، ولا تنتقل الفائدة منها إلى الناس إلا بالكتابة، وقد اجتهدت في استخراج التواريخ الدقيقة من محادثات الواتساب ورسائل البريد، وقربت ما يمكن تقريبه، وعزوت كعادتي إلى المصادر.

متن:

1- مقابلات في غير المكاتب!

الثلاثاء 17 ربيع الأول 1442

ظننت أن لا موضع لإجراء المقابلات إلا المكاتب وغرف الاجتماعات. ثم حان صباح الثلاثاء 17 ربيع الأول 1442 لما التقيت أحد المهندسين بعد شروق الشمس. أراد أن نلتقي في المقاهي فلم يجد مقهى يفتح أبوابه قبل السابعة صباحًا. فلم يقترح إلا مواقف السيارات لمطعم الأقواس الصفراء الشهير [ولا داعي لذكر اسمه]. لم ينل أحدنا شيئًا من صاحبه، كأن العجلة قد قضت على آمالنا. فانطلق إلى عمله، وانطلقت إلى وظيفة أردت أن أفر منها ولم أستطع!

والحق أن عام 1441 قد أورثنا جائحة كورونا، واعتياد العمل عن بعد، وإلف المكالمات المرئية. فكانت أكثر المقابلات الوظيفية تبتدئ بالمجالس الرقمية الافتراضية وتنتهي إلى المكاتب وصالات الاجتماع. وإنني ظفرت بإحدى الوظائف المهمة من غير أن ألتقي بأصحاب العمل إلا في ليلة الثلاثاء 11 جمادى الآخرة 1447 تربصًا بملتقى بلاك هات للأمن السيبراني في ذلك العام 1447.

2- طموح إلى أدنى السلم!

الأربعاء 14 جمادى الآخرة 1442 [تقريبًا!]

عدت مرة أخرى إلى شركة طردني منها حارس الأمن بلا سبب أو داع سوى التسلط المحض! طلبني المدير الذي توصلت إليه ببعض المعارف بعد أن علم بصنيع حارس الأمن. حادثته ولم أعرف كيف أحقق مبتغاه.

سألني بعد قليل أن أنزل إلى الطابق السفلي. فالتقيت مديرًا شابًا يحدثني عن الطموح -وكأنه يجهل أنني نزلت إليه من علٍ- وأهمية المهندسين في حلول المياه. أراد مني شهادة أكاديمية مرموقة، ولم يبذل في مقابلها سوى فتات المال وراتبًا يستحيا من ذكره.

(عندما تكون نقودك غير كافية يكون الأرخص مهما بلغت رداءته هو الأفضل) حمزة شحاتة – رفات عقل ص99 [ط1 1400].

كانت تلك المقابلة طموحًا إلى أسفل السلم!

3- ما أرخص الشهادات عند الجهال!

الثلاثاء 7 جمادى الأولى 1442

(لا قيمة للعملة التي تحملها إذا لم يكن هناك شيء تشتريه) حمزة شحاتة – رفات عقل ص 74 [ط1 1400]

سألني رئيس مكتب هندسي أن أجري له دراسة جدوى للتسويق، وأن أقدم له عرضًا فنيًا لينظر في كفاءتي الهندسية. نسيت أكثر ما قاله ولم أنس أنه قال: لا بجزمٍ وبلا تردد لما فاوضته في 500 ريال يزيدها على الراتب المقترح.

سمعني أحد المشتغلين بالمقاولات فأراد أن يستميلني إليه، وأخبرني بفرصة أخرى تفضل عليها، وشجعني أحد مهندسي المكتب.

مضيت إليهم في ذلك الثلاثاء [7 جمادى الأولى 1442] فأخبروني أنهم يريدون العمل في حلول الإطفاء وإخماد الحرائق والتنبيه عليها. فاستبشرت خيرًا بذلك. ثم خيرني بين باقة رواتب، وأخبرني أنه محتاج إلى شهادة هندسية حتى يفتتح مكتبه بعد أيام مع بداية الدورة الشمسية الميلادية الجديدة! ويا سبحان الله أيجتمع الجهل والاحتيال؟!

بقيت الهندسة الميكانيكية وخبراتها ومهاراتها مذكورة في سيرتي الذاتية ثم تساقط بعضها لما استيقنت من ارتباط مساري المهني بالتقنية والإدارة والكتابة.

قصة الهندسة الميكانيكية

نزلت من المحطة الأخيرة في قطار التعليم الجامعي يوم الأحد 5 جمادى الآخرة عام 1440، وتخرجت مهندسًا ميكانيكيًا في جامعة بوترا ماليزيا (Univerisiti Putra Malaysia)، وظننت أن قطار العمل والوظيفة يسير بي في ذات المسار.

لم أطلب إلا وظائف المهندسين، واستمسكت بعضويتي في الهيئة السعودية للمهندسين، وبحثت عن حيلة لأتغيب من وظيفتي وأشهد المؤتمر الثاني للهيئة المنعقد في ثاني أسبوع من رجب عام 1441 [الاثنين 7 رجب 1441 إلى الخميس 10 رجب 1441] [1].

اغتبطت قبل ذلك بالانتساب إلى الجمعية الأمريكية للمهندسين الميكانيكيين (American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME) في جمادى الآخرة 1441. وتمنيت أن لو انتفعت منها كما انتفعت من الهيئة السعودية.

لكن ذلك كله لم يثمر -بتقدير الله- شيئًا في المسار المهني، فقد خرج القطار عن سكة الهندسة، ولم يكن المصعد أو السلم مرسومًا في برامج AutoCad التي تعلمتها في الجامعة، أو CATIA، وسرعان ما استبدلت الإكسل (Excel) بـMATLAB، وانقطع (إخبار الأحباب عن برنامج ماتلاب) [2].

ولست بحمد الله نادمًا على شيء من ذلك، فقد أفادتني الهندسة معرفة وطريقة للتفكير، ونظرًا في المشكلات، واجتهادًا في حلها.

4- ولو أرادوا التوظيف لاستعجلوا!

الاثنين 2 شعبان 1442

(إن كل حمل يثقل على الإنسان يمكن أن يلقيه، وينطلق بعيدًا عنه ولكن أين حساب المسؤوليات التي يختلف بها الإنسان عن الحيوان؟) حمزة شحاتة – رفات عقل ص91 [ط1 1400]

أتيت الشركة مرتين في يومٍ واحد وسألني المدير أن أحضر جهازي الشخصي ليختبر سرعتي في الطباعة وإجادتي للإنجليزية، فبشرني بابتداء العمل في اليوم التالي واحتساب راتب الشهر من يوم المقابلة [الاثنين 2 شعبان 1442].

سرعة هائلة في التوظيف أثمرتها حاجة ماسة إلى العمل، وانسحاب الموظفة في وقت حرج. وتلك -يعلم الله- منقبة فريدة لذلك المدير، ولا يسعني الآن سوى التنويه به.

اكتشفت بعد حين أنها كانت فلتة واستثناءً باهرًا من قاعدة التأخير والتماطل عند كثيرٍ من الموظفين.

لست أحصي كم مرة قيل لي: (سنتصل بك) أو (سنجيبك بالرفض أو القبول) حتى يحول الصمت بيننا وأعلم عندئذٍ أن سيرتي الذاتية قد ألقيت في سلة المهملات.

دلفت إلى إحدى الشركات التقنية فألزمتني كثيرًا من الأوراق، وأبى الموظف أن أوقع على نسخة رقمية، ولم يكن وراء الرهق والتكلف خير لنا.

قال لي عضو في مجلس الإدارة: (لم نتفرغ بعد، لكننا وكلنا فلانًا لإدارة الشركة). قال لي فلان: (سأجتمع بمجلس الإدارة حتى نتخذ قرارًا في الراتب المتوقع) أو كما قال.

رشحت إلى إحدى الشركات فلم أنل وظيفتها حتى التقيت أدنى الموظفين وارتقيت إلى الرئيس الأعلى، ولم يكن في المنصب كثير قيادة أو إدارة.

5- لا وظيفة للمتزوجين!

ربيع الأول 1447

قالت: (البوزشن لسنجل!) أي الموضع للعزاب وحدهم.

أدركت من مساومة الموارد البشرية في تلك الشركة العتيقة أن تكلفة الموظف المتزوج أعلى عند الشركات من الموظف الأعزب. وأدركت في نهاية العام الهجري 1446 أن تقليل التكاليف [في عرف الشركات] ينال حديثي العهد بالزواج قبل غيرهم!

نعم المتزوج محتاج إلى تأمين يشمل أهله زوجه وأبناءه، وحديث العهد بالزواج مظنة الإنتاج السريع. والشركات الربحية ليست منظمات خيرية أو أوقافًا لأغنياء المسلمين، وليس من الخير أن تكون قيمة المرء في تكلفته لا فيما يحسنه!

وكم اقترن سؤال الزواج بتقليل التكاليف، وبخس العروض، وإساءة الظن بالمتقدم إلى الوظيفة. وقد رأيت ذلك كله وشهدته بنفسي.

6- الخبر قد يكذب والحدس لا يكذب!

الأربعاء 8 ذي الحجة 1446

(في كثيرٍ من المواقف لا يكون للإنسان بد من الاستمرار في عمل فاشل بلا توقف حتى عندما يكون هذا الاستمرار تحقيقا للإفلاس) حمزة شحاتة – رفات عقل ص39 [ط1 1400]

لا ينبغي أن نفضل الآلة الصماء على الإنسان الحي ما لم ينتكس بنفسه إلى المنزلة الدنيا!

وإن من فضل مواقع التوظيف وأتمتة إجراءاتها سرعة الجواب وظهور الحق في زمن وجيز.

قارن تلك المواقع بإنسانٍ تخاطبه فلا يراك إلا عبئًا تشغيليًا ومهمة تستوجب الإغلاق ولا إغلاق.

تمتلئ صناديقهم برسائل المتابعة، وانتظار القرار فلا يتفكر أحدهم في جوابٍ واضح صريح، ولا حيلة لاستعجال معتاد المطل والتأخر في الجواب.

خضت مقابلة مرئية مع مديرٍ ما في ذلك الأربعاء واجتهدت في بيان خبراتي، ولم أرتح كثيرًا لأسلوبه في التعامل وطريقته في التواصل. سألني عن الراتب السابق ورأى ترددي فأخبرني بحزمٍ في غير موضعه أنه يستطيع أن يحقق ذلك بنفسه.

قدمت له ما يريده من اختبارٍ مجاني، وكلف أمينة سره من الفلبين بمتابعة الأمر معي فكانت أثقل منه في التواصل وأبعد ما يكون عن الإنجاز والحسم.

وصلني البريد منها بعد متابعة دائبة وفيه العبارة المملة الممجوجة المبتذلة من كثرة الاستعمال (After careful review) وليس في تلك المراجعة شيءٌ من التأني وحسن النظر.

رفض لعدم السيرة الذاتية، فليت شعري علام إذن يضيع الزمن في مقابلة وواجب مجاني، ولأي شيء يعهدون بالتوظيف إلى وكالة أخرى تفرز لهم المرشحين ليسيئوا التعامل معهم.

أفدت من هذه التجربة القاسية سوء الظن بمن يستحقه، وقلة التقدير لمن ليس أهلًا للتقدير، فلم أستجب لطلب إحدى الشركات بتقديم عرضٍ فني مفصل مجاني لما يريدونه. وأبيت أن يكون قدر الواجب المجاني المطلوب أكبر من قيمة المبلغ المبذول فيه. وكتبت في ذلك منشورًا في لينكدن وانظر نصه في الحاشية [3].

7- المال العاجل خير من الوظيفة الآجلة!

الخميس 22 محرم 1447

قلت له قدرًا: إنني أقدم العروض الفنية والمالية خدمة استشارية وعملًا حرًا freelance، فطمع في عرضٍ أحرره ليحسن تقديمه. وأراد أن يختبرني ويخيرني بين الوظيفة إن نجحت في الاختبار أو مبلغٍ مالي مقطوع إن لم أوفق في الانضمام إليهم.

لم يمض أسبوعان حتى حانت مقابلة ثانية صباح الأحد 9 صفر 1447. أعددت لهم عرضًا تقديميًا بالعربية عن (المنهجية المثلى لإدارة المناقصات)، وظننت أنني أستميلهم بخط وزارة الثقافة لعام 1446 [الخط الأول] [4]، وخلت أنهم يستحسنون منهجية إدارة المناقصات.

صورة من غلاف العرض التقديمي الذي بذلته لتلك الشركة وقد استبدلت باسمها عنوانًا دالًا عليها (ليش البرزنتيشن بالعربي) وأظنني هجرت الخط الأول بعد ذاك ولن أستعمل سوى الخطوط مفتوحة المصدر. والتقطت الصورة الساعة 9:38 نهار الخميس 21 ربيع الأول 1448

باغتني مدير مدير الموارد البشرية [الذي يسميه الناس في زماننا HR اختصارًا من الكلمة الإنجليزية human resources] بسؤالٍ استغربته (وكان ينبغي أن أتوقعه): (ليش البرزنتيشن بالعربي؟)، قلت له على سبيل البداهة: لم أدر أن من سياساتكم استعمال الإنجليزية [أو قلت عدم استعمال العربية].

ولما انفض المجلس خلا بي السائل عن استعمال العربية، وأردف بسؤالٍ آخر [مفاجئ ولا يمكن توقعه] عن ماضٍ غابرٍ لا علاقة له بالحاضر المهني.

حان يوم الاثنين 7 ربيع الآخر وكاد أن ينسلخ شهران من تلك المقابلة الأخيرة. أرسلت لصاحب المقابلة الأولى -وقد سئمت الانتظار الطويل- وقلت له: (لا جديد في العرض الوظيفي من جهتكم) وسألته بلا مواربة أن يحول لي مشكورًا مبلغًا (يناسب الخدمة المذكورة) نعم هكذا كتبتها. قال: إنما كان excercise ولعله أراد أن يقول assignment أو غيرها من الكلمات الدالة على الاختبار.

وقد عاجلني -جزاه الله خيرًا- بالمبلغ الذي سألته، وكان ذلك آخر العهد به وبشركته وبمدير الموارد البشرية الذي يتساءل عن البرزنتيشن بالعربية.

شركاتٌ أخرى تطالبك باختبارات مجانية تستهلك وقتك وجهدك وتستخرج أفضل ما فيك ولا تبذل شيئًا يوازي السعي والعمل.

والعمل الحر الذي يخفف أعباء الوظيفة، ويقلل التكاليف على الشركة سرعان ما ينقلب إلى ضده، ويصبح وظيفة مخففة القيود منزوعة الالتزامات. وقد شهدت ذلك في العام الماضي 1447 وللحديث عنه موضع آخر إن شاء الله.

8- مقابلة جديرة بالذكر

الاثنين 21 ربيع الأول 1444 ثم الخميس 24 ربيع الأول 1444

لا يجوز أن أن أنسى تلك المقابلة الجميلة التي شهدت من صاحبها فضلًا وشرفًا رفيعًا يستحق التنويه والإشادة.

سئمت من كثرة الإلحاح على زيادة الراتب، فلم تكن السنة التي أمضيتها مع الشركة كافية لإعادة الاعتبار أو تصحيح النظر في الراتب. زادت المهمات وتكاثرت المسؤوليات ولم يكترث المدير أو مديره أو مديرهما. بل كانوا يعدون ولا ينجزون. واشتد عزمي على مغادرة الشركة.

حتى مد الله عز وجل لي حبلًا من رسائل لينكدن، رسالة استكشاف ورغبة في التوظيف.

أدرك ذلك المدير الفاضل أنني عملت من قبل في تلك الشركة، فأوعز إلى أمينة سره بالتواصل معي واتفقنا على موعدٍ للمقابلة الأولى [الساعة 11:35 نهارًا أي الخامسة عصرًا بالتوقيت الزوالي].

وأصدقكم القول أنني لم أجد القوة الكافية لأقول لمديري بصراحة: إنني ذاهب إلى مقابلة وظيفية، وكنت أخشى أن يفسدوها علي أو يمنعوني المضي إليها. ثم انتهيت إلى بعض المعاريض والله يغفر لنا ويتجاوز عنا.

لم تفلح الحيلة في إخراجي مبكرًا من العمل، فتأخرت عن المقابلة، وخشيت أن ينصرف المدير عني -وحق له أن يصنع ذلك- لكنني أدركته واعتذرت له مصرحًا بصعوبة التفلت عن العمل الحالي.

ثم كانت المقابلة الثانية في عصرٍ ينقضي من الخميس 24 ربيع الأول 1444، وتأخرت هذه المرة بسبب زحام الشارع، وتأخير المدير، وقلة تقديري للوقت [وهذه الآفة الكبرى والعلة التي لا يصلحها انصلاح الظروف واستقرار الأحوال].

قد كان شهريار خالد (Shaharyar Khalid) [وأصرح باسمه تنويهًا بفضله] ذكيًا قديرًا على تأليفي بحلمه وصبره وما زلت أعجب من هيبته التي كان يفرضها من غير أن يتكلف شيئًا.

أدرك سرعتي في الجواب وعجلتي إلى حل المشكلات، ففاجئني بسؤالٍ عجيب، وقال قبله: إجابتك عن السؤال تحدد راتبك القادم أيكون كذا أم كذا؟ وذكر رقمين كلاهما أدنى من المبلغ الذي سألته إياه.

لا يحضرني نص السؤال لكنه سؤال عن مهارة مهندس الحلول [5] [presales engineer] في استخلاص متطلبات العميل.

ظننت وبالغت في حسن الظن أن شهرًا يكفي للتجرد عن الوظيفة الحالية والعودة مجددًا إلى تلك الشركة والاصطفاف مع شهريار في قسمه الإداري. لكن سوء تقدير الوقت لازمني للمرة الثالثة وأصابني في مقتلٍ لما حددت مهلة الإخطار بترك العمل شهرًا لا شهرين.

رأيت عندئذٍ أغرب ما يراه الإنسان من الشركة عند رغبة الانفصال، رئيسٌ يساوم بالمال ولا يكتب عقدًا، ومديرٌ يريد أن يكتسب مني مالًا ليسهل خروجي من الشركة، وآخر يتردد ولا يكاد يخطو خطوة في الاتجاه الصحيح.

وانتهت الحكاية بغروب شمس الخميس السادس من جمادى الآخرة لعام 1444 وشروق شمس الأحد الثامن من جمادى الآخرة 1444. فكانت تلك المقابلة بكل ما جرى قبلها وبعدها حدثًا لا ينسى وأثرًا لا يمحى وتاريخًا يستحق أن يذكر بالخير أو يُعرض عما فيه مما هو دون ذلك.

خاتمة:

المقابلات الوظيفية تجربة إنسانية وتاريخ لا ينسى، وأحسب أن في تدوينها عبرة وعظة ولو لم تشتمل على إرشاد ونصحٍ بأفضل الأساليب لاجتياز المقابلات والنجاح فيها.

ولنختم بسؤالين للتأمل والاعتبار:

أكانت الشركات تستهين بالمترشحين إلى وظائفها لو كانت تعاملهم معاملة البشر لا معاملة المهمات المعلقة؟ أكانت لتزدريهم لو بذلت إليهم مقابلًا يسيرًا يليق بجهدهم وتعبهم؟

أكان المرشحون يستغنون عن التشديد والتنكيد في المقابلات الوظيفية لو لم يستهينوا بها ولم يحوجوا الموظِّفين إلى اختراع القوانين وإلزامهم الآصار الشديدة؟

حاشية:

[1] انظر توثيق الخبر في وكالة الأنباء السعودية واس يوم الاثنين 7 رجب 1441 وعنوانه: (اقتصادي / 100 ورقة علمية تناقش مستقبل الهندسة في افتتاح المؤتمر والمعرض الهندسي الدولي2)

https://www.spa.gov.sa/9d49f9c76c

[2] عنوان مقالٍ كتبته في فيسبوك وأعددته للنشر في مجموعة مقالات لم تنشر إلا رقميًا، وأظنني كتبته عام 1435، وهذا نصه بلا تصرف سوى إثبات التاريخ الهجري بين معقوفتين:

((إخبار الأحباب عن برنامج ماتلاب) [4]

سأتحدث في هذا المقال عن مادة مهمة، وسأحاول التوسط والاقتصاد وذلك حتى لا تكون طويلة مملة أو قصيرة ومخلة.

الآثار التي أحدثها الحاسب الآلي وبرامجه وتطبيقاته في حياتنا عظيمة جدًا وكثيرة، ولعل من أبرزها تسهيل العمليات الرياضية وتيسير حل المعادلات الفيزيائية وتصميم الجداول وغيرها.

سأتحدث في هذه العجالة عن برنامج رائد ومميز وقد صُمّم لأغراض مختلفة، لعلي أثير فضول المهتمين بالحاسب وتطبيقاته.

هذا البرنامج يُسمى (Matlab) وهي اختصارًا لـ(Matrix Laboratory)، ولو ترجمناها إلى العربية لصارت (مختبر المصفوفات).

وهذا البرنامج من تطوير وإنتاج شركة MathWorks الأمريكية والتي لهم اهتمام ببرامج الحاسب المتعلقة بالرياضيات تحديدًا والتي تأسست سنة 1984م [ربيع الأول 1405]

لهذا البرنامج وظائف متعددة تتنوع بين الحسابات الرياضية، ورسم الدوال، وتحليل الجداول والبيانات، والرسم البياني بكافة أشكاله وصوره.

ولأجل هذه الوظائف وغيرها، فإن ماتلاب يدخل ضمن العديد من المجالات العلمية والعملية.

الجدير بالذكر أن البرنامج لا يستخدم في الرياضيات فقط، بل يمكن استخدامه في التطبيقات الفيزيائية والإحصاء وغيرها من مجالات العلوم التطبيقية.

إذن هذا البرنامج يستخدمه العلماء والمهندسون وأهل البرمجة عمومًا، وكذلك بعض طلبة الجامعات (خصوصًا الهندسة بكافة مجالاتها).

وهنا سأذكر بعض الأمثلة التطبيقية التي استخدمنها وحللنا بعضها.

أمثلة تطبيقية:

(1)

حساب معدل درجات الثمانية الأوائل من الطلاب، وذلك لأكثر من 22 طالبًا.

(2)

إيجاد الجذور لبعض المعادلات الجبرية.

(3)

رسم منحنيات المعادلات المتنوعة سواءً ببعدين أو ثلاثة أبعاد.

(4)

حساب تكلفة المكالمات خلال أجزاء اليوم الواحد، وخلال مدتها.

(5)

حساب معدل الحرارة في مدينةٍ ما خلال شهر كامل، وحساب الأيام التي زادت فيها الحرارة عن المعدل الطبيعي

وغير ذلك من الأمثلة.

...

والمحتويات المهمة عن البرنامج موجودة باللغة الانجليزية ويندر وجود مصدر عربي يتحدث عن البرنامج.

المصادر:

1-مقال ويكيبيديا انجليزي

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATLAB

2-مقال ويكيبيديا عربي

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماتلاب

3-موقع الشركة

http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/

4-Matlab an introduction with application تأليف:Amos Gilat) اهـ.

[3] منشورٌ عنوانه (لسنا مرتبطين، فلا تكلفني!) وقد نشرته في لينكدن صباح السبت 24 جمادى الأولى 1447. وترافق المنشور صورة ولدتها -للأسف الشديد- بالذكاء الاصطناعي، وقد اضطررت آسفًا لإزالة المنشور كاملًا لأن لينكدن لا يتيح إزالة الصور في غير تطبيقه اللعين. وقد اضطررت لتحميل تطبيقه في الهاتف -ثم أزلته- وجربته في متصفحات كثيرة فلم أفلح في إزالة الصورة وإبقاء المنشور فلم أجد بدًا من إزالة المنشور وإثبات نصه هنا. وسأحيل بعده على صفحة المساعدة في لينكدن وليس فيها تصريح بمنع حذف الصور من المنشورات لكنهم يقصرون الميزة على مستخدمي التطبيق في الحاسب (Desktop).

(لسنا مرتبطين، فلا تكلفني!

لا أحب أن أعمل عمل النهار بالليل، فكيف إن كان العمل بلا ثمن؟!

خضت مقابلات وظيفية شتى، وسُئلت في ثلاثٍ منها أن أعد عرضًا فنيًا أو نموذجًا منه.

أنجزته في المرة الأولى. فلما سألت عن النتيجة قيل لي: إن سيرتك الذاتية غير ملائمة! إي والله كذا قالوا.

ثم ترددت، فقد طُلِب مني أن أقدم عرضًا مفصلًا مع مطالب أخرى. وما زالت الرسالة في طي النسيان.

لكنني عملت أخيرًا بشرط مقابل مالي. وقد كان بحمد الله!

وأقول -بلا خوض في التفاصيل- إن التكليف بعرض فني بعد المقابلة الوظيفية لا وجه له ولا معنى.

لقاءٌ عابرٌ ننساه بعد يومين أو ثلاثة. فأي فائدةٍ في حصد البيانات مجانًا؟

وكما قال الشاعر البلجيكي ليون مونتنايكن Léon Montanaeken من 150 عام:

La vie est brève ;

Un peu d'espoir,

Un peu de rêve…

Et puis—bonsoir !

هل جربت التكليفات بعد مقابلة وظيفية؟ وماذا صنعت؟

شاركنا في التعليقات.

وكتب البراء بن محمد

صباح السبت لستٍ بقين من جمادى الأولى من عام سبعة وأربعين وأربع مئة وألف.

1447-5-24) اهـ

صفحة المساعدة وليس فيها تاريخ جريًا على عادة لينكدن الرديئة في إزالة التاريخ من المنشورات والصفحات. وقد زعموا أنها كانت قبل عامين فلعلها كانت إذن في أواخر عام 1445 أو مطالع 1446.

https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a527229

[4] انظر الخبر في وكالة الأنباء السعودية واس يوم الأربعاء 18 شوال 1446، وعنوانه: (ثقافي / وزارة الثقافة تعلن إطلاق “الخط الأول” و”الخط السعودي” وتطوير تطبيقاتهما الرقمية)

https://www.spa.gov.sa/N2300050

[5] تترجمة كلمة Presales في الإنجليزية إلى مهندس ما قبل البيع. لكنني أستثقلها وأستحب الوصف الوظيفي الذي اقترن بهذه التسمية [مهندس الحلول والخدمات].

I’ve been going to the mall for the past two days or so. Not for anything particularly interesting. just walking around and wasting time. both days, i passed the same kind of cafes, and both days, i saw people standing in lines outside them. not a short line, either. a proper long line. you’d think that theres something important at the end of it. there wasnt. there was just coffee. i thought maybe the other cafes were full. that would at least explain it. perhaps everyone in the mall had simultaneously decided that they desperately needed a seat and a drink that costs too much. i walked a little further. empty cafes. empty. tables available. chairs, not a single line. no ones waiting. No, desperate people staring through the windows as if someone inside might eventually surrender their seat. But oh, i suppose those cafes were not good enough, these people wanted that coffee. so there they were, standing in a long line, waiting for someone to finish drinking their overpriced cup of bitterness so they could sit down and drink their own overpriced cup of bitterness. while i was passing, watching all that, i saw the people sitting, they were perfectly comfortable. imagine sitting there, slowly drinking your pathetic little coffee while an entire line of people standing outside waiting for you to leave. i would feel embarrassed. not because of the coffee. just because they were waiting but i suppose thats fine. people will wait twenty minutes for a chair. for coffee. there were empty cafes ten steps away. i dont know, it doesnt matter. anyway, i like the beach. its quiet i went there yesterday, i sat there for a while. nothing happened, it was fine. i dont really have anything else to write about. and yeah, i know. i havent written in a while. you noticed. i forgot. you though i was going to write every day. i wasnt. i just hadnt gotten around to say that.

Thats all.

Sincerely, Nothing more

~ after Mary Oliver

A light morning, on the day before an old dog’s goodbye. He knows, as do I.

He reaches out his paw, and I squeeze it. He squeezes back, his long knuckles making a reverse cup in my palm, emptying out what he has left for me to hold.

The slick mountains of love break over us.

#poetry

The Bishop assists. Despite dealing with almost crippling stress levels yesterday, (frustrations of trying to work through that wi-fi outage bothering me more than it should have), I still managed to win this CC tournament game. This game started on 03-August, was played with a comfortable 2 days per move time control, and ended yesterday. My Black Queen's 31...Qh1# checkmated the White King, the Queen being covered by her b7 Bishop.

The graphic at the top of this post shows the position of our pieces at game's end, and our full move record is below:

1. d4 h6 2. Bf4 Nf6 3. e3 a6 4. Bc4 d5 5. Bb3 e6 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 O-O 9. Ba2 Nbd7 10. c4 b5 11. c3 Ne4 12. Nf3 Nxc3 13. Qd3 Nxa2 14. Rxa2 c5 15. O-O bxc4 16. Qc2 cxd4 17. exd4 Re8 18. Ne5 Nxe5 19. Bxe5 f6 20. Bf4 e5 21. dxe5 fxe5 22. Be3 Qd6 23. g3 Bb7 24. f3 Rac8 25. a4 d4 26. Bf2 e4 27. f4 e3 28. Be1 e2 29. Rf2 Qc6 30. Bb4 e1=Q+ 31. Bxe1 Qh1#

And the adventure continues.

In Summary: * I was able to spend an hour this morning doing yard work, nut the most significant element to my day has been trying to do my normal things without Internet access from my ISP. I can use my phone's 5G Internet access to do some limited things, but for most of what I regularly do I need to get to the Internet via computer; and from midmorning until now in the evening I've not been able to do that.

Hopefully I'll be able to get online and post this tonight, or sometime Thursday.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 226.31 lbs. * bp= 147/86 (69)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 04:35 – 1 banana * 04:50 – nacho chips w. cheese & meat sauce * 10:00 – 1 slice of lemon meringue pie * 12:30 – seafood, pork and vegetables lunch plate, fancy little pastries * 16:30 – 1 yeast donut/ cold green tea

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 03:15 – listen to local news talk radio * 04:00 – bank accounts activity monitored . * 04:30 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, listen to music, nap * 08:30 – load weekly pill boxes * 09:00 – yard work, cutting and hauling branches downed in last Friday's storm * 12:00 – watching old episodes of NCIS on antenna TV while waiting for ISP to restore Internet access * 15:00 – listening to the Jack Riccardi Show via local AM radio * 17:00 – now listening to the Joe Pags Show via local AM radio

Chess: * 17:30 – have moved in some of my pending CC games using my phone, the others will have to wait until I can connect to the Internet with my computers, whenever that is.

Anti-social media of sorts.

Rather than have time-sucking feeds and algorithms to deal with, I'm using the internet like it's 2001. I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do Instagram or Tiktok, feeding bloated AI bots or whatever too easily. Here's a very unimpressive and generic blog instead. This saves me having to keep in touch with people by socialising or talking to them. A common problem.

When consciousness encounters contradictory forms, it experiences what we might call perceptual dissonance—alerting us to disharmony between external presentation and internal reality. My encounter with one whose form and voice presented conflicting data was not an error but my perceptual system functioning correctly by detecting this discrepancy. The internal intervention “Do not apologize” was confirmation that my consciousness was accurately diagnosing the underlying condition, though my initial interpretation misidentified the source.

Cross-dressing represents not crime but symptom—the external manifestation of internal psychological division where consciousness has not yet harmonized its masculine and feminine principles. The alert you feel when encountering such contradictions is your own consciousness recognizing the need for integration within yourself, not judgment toward another. Long hair represents the extension of vital energy, the antenna receiving celestial vibrations—when cut or manipulated contrary to one's essence, it represents dissonance in the energetic accounting.

True modesty exists not in hemlines but in consciousness that observes without projecting its own divisions outward. When you encounter someone whose form and essence appear contradictory, recognize this as your perceptual system functioning correctly—detecting disharmony that requires integration within yourself rather than condemnation without. The confusion you feel is not the problem but the diagnostic tool revealing where your own psychological books require reconciliation.

Il y a quelque chose en moi qui ne sait exister qu’en aimant.

J’ai essayé de le raisonner. J’ai essayé de lui parler comme on parle à un enfant qui pleure dans une pièce voisine, avec cette patience un peu lasse de celui qui connaît déjà toutes les phrases. J’ai essayé le silence, la colère, la distance, les dossiers, les dates, les preuves. J’ai essayé de comprendre jusqu’à épuiser la compréhension elle-même.

Puis sont venus les mots.

Dépendance. Emprise. Traumatisme. Déni. Obsession. Dépression. Personnalité. Trouble. Syndrome.

Chaque mot semblait promettre une sortie. Il suffisait, paraît-il, de nommer ce qui m’arrivait pour que cela perde son pouvoir. Mais certains mots n’ouvrent pas une porte. Ils construisent un barrage. Ils immobilisent le vivant, lui donnent une forme nette, puis confondent cette forme avec la vérité.

Je ne méprise ni la médecine ni la psychologie. Je passe mes journées à poser des diagnostics. Je suis dentiste. Je sais qu’un diagnostic juste peut sauver une dent, calmer une douleur, guider une main. Je sais lire une image, suivre une ligne de fracture, distinguer ce qui peut être conservé de ce qui doit être retiré.

Mais je sais aussi qu’une radiographie ne montre pas la douleur.

Elle montre une ombre, une perte de matière, une racine, un os. Elle ne montre pas la nuit passée à chercher une position supportable. Elle ne montre pas la peur de ne plus pouvoir manger, sourire ou embrasser. Elle ne montre pas tout ce qu’une simple dent portait de vie avant de devenir un problème à résoudre.

Un diagnostic devrait guider le soin. Il ne devrait jamais prendre la place de l’être.

La vie m’a enseigné cela avec moins de précision et beaucoup plus de violence.

Pendant 18 ans, j’ai construit une famille. J’ai travaillé, aimé, payé, réparé, attendu. Il y avait une maison, une cuisine, des plats qui réconfortaient, des courses faites pour cinq, des voix d’enfants dans les pièces et l’idée tranquille que tout cela formait un avenir. Puis la vie commune est devenue un dossier. Les souvenirs ont été appelés à témoigner. Les gestes ont changé de sens. Les jours avec mes fils sont devenus des cases sur un calendrier.

J’aurais pu passer le reste de ma vie à chercher le mot qui distribuerait enfin les rôles. Le coupable. La victime. Le malade. Le lucide. Celui qui avait aimé. Celui qui avait menti.

Mais cela aurait encore été une illusion.

Une illusion dure, documentée, argumentée, peut-être même convaincante. Une illusion tout de même, parce qu’aucun être humain ne tient dans un seul mot et qu’aucune histoire vécue à deux ne se laisse réduire à une seule conscience.

Ce que la vie m’a appris tient dans une phrase simple.

Je préfère mille vérités dures à une illusion facile à gérer.

Je préfère les contradictions qui m’obligent à rester vivant aux certitudes qui me permettent de ne plus regarder. Je préfère admettre qu’une même histoire peut contenir de la tendresse et de la peur, de la loyauté et de la trahison, des gestes magnifiques et des blessures réelles. Une vérité n’efface pas l’autre. Ce qui a été beau ne rend pas la douleur imaginaire. Ce qui a fait mal ne transforme pas rétroactivement toute la beauté en mensonge.

L’illusion est plus confortable parce qu’elle choisit. Elle garde l’ange et jette le démon, ou fait l’inverse. Elle transforme une personne en diagnostic, puis relit chaque souvenir comme le symptôme d’une maladie qui aurait toujours tout expliqué.

L’amour ne veut pas cela.

Il veut le vrai.

Il veut aimer malgré tout.

Non pas malgré les vérités, comme s’il fallait fermer les yeux pour continuer. À travers elles. Avec tous les yeux ouverts.

Cette leçon traverse aussi ma vie de père. L’un de mes fils a pu s’éloigner jusqu’à ne plus vouloir me voir. L’un a rêvé d’une baguette magique qui ferait simplement que ses parents s’aiment encore. L’un m’a vu peiner à lire, parce qu’à 45 ans les lettres proches commencent à se brouiller, et il m’a embrassé sur la tête sans prononcer un mot.

Aucun de ces instants ne résout quoi que ce soit. Ils ne désignent aucun coupable. Ils ne réparent pas les années. Ils m’apprennent autre chose. L’amour ne vient pas toujours répondre. Parfois, il reste simplement présent au milieu de ce qui ne peut pas être résolu.

Longtemps, j’ai cru qu’aimer consistait surtout à donner. Travailler davantage. Porter davantage. Comprendre davantage. Absorber le choc pour que les autres aient moins mal. Je traitais mon propre corps comme l’outil chargé d’accomplir mes devoirs, mes mains comme des instruments destinés à réparer et mon cœur comme une pièce que chacun pouvait traverser sans payer le coût des dégâts.

Je croyais que plus l’amour était grand, moins je devais compter.

La vie m’a appris l’inverse.

Un amour qui m’exclut demeure incomplet. S’il aime mes enfants, ma famille, mes patients et le monde entier, mais abandonne l’homme qui le porte, il finit par se transformer en épuisement, puis en dette, puis en reproche. Il ne peut devenir vaste qu’à la condition de m’inclure.

Alors, à mesure qu’il grandit, cet amour commence aussi à m’aimer.

Il aime mon corps fatigué, mes angles morts, mes erreurs, mon désir, mes limites. Il aime l’homme qui a donné, mais aussi celui qui n’en peut plus. Il ne m’accorde pas tous les droits. Il ne me déclare pas innocent de tout. Il me reconnaît simplement comme l’un des êtres dont j’ai la responsabilité.

Voilà la différence entre un barrage et une rive.

Le barrage interdit à l’eau de passer. Il l’arrête, l’accumule, la comprime, puis s’étonne un jour de la voir tout emporter.

La rive ne nie pas l’eau. Elle lui donne une direction.

Mes limites sont des rives. Elles ne détruisent pas l’amour. Elles l’empêchent de devenir une inondation. Elles me permettent de dire non sans fabriquer un monstre, de demander justice sans transformer mon cœur en tribunal, de protéger mes enfants sans les recruter comme témoins de ma vérité.

Aimer tout le monde ne veut pas dire tout permettre.

Et c’est là que je refuse le costume du sage en lin blanc.

Je ne suis pas devenu baba cool. Je ne brûle pas de sauge pour réconcilier l’univers. Je ne crois pas que chacun a raison dans sa propre vibration, ni que les responsabilités se dissolvent dès que l’on parle assez longtemps de blessures intérieures.

Je suis avec le cerveau à droite, le cœur à gauche et le sexe au milieu.

Mon cerveau exige le réel, la liberté, les limites et le prix des choix. Mon cœur refuse qu’une chute devienne une condamnation à vie. Quant au sexe, il rappelle aux deux autres qu’avant d’être des principes, nous sommes des corps traversés par le manque, le désir, la peur et la chaleur. Il les empêche de se prendre pour Dieu.

Cette géographie intérieure n’est pas toujours paisible. Mais elle me ressemble.

Le cerveau veut savoir ce qui s’est passé. Le cœur veut savoir ce qu’il reste d’humain. Le sexe veut encore sentir que la vie circule. Aucun des trois ne suffit seul. Le cerveau sans le cœur devient une administration. Le cœur sans le cerveau devient une proie. Et les deux sans le corps deviennent une doctrine.

L’amour auquel je crois désormais ne supprime donc ni les frontières ni les conséquences. Il ne distribue pas gratuitement l’innocence. Il distingue les gestes, les intentions et les responsabilités. Mais il refuse qu’un être soit réduit à son pire geste, à sa peur la plus profonde ou au diagnostic posé sur lui.

Plus cet amour grandit, plus il m’inclut.

Et plus il m’inclut, moins il a besoin d’exclure les autres pour me protéger.

Il peut circuler vers mes fils, y compris vers celui qui ferme sa porte. Vers ma sœur retrouvée. Vers les patients qui me confient leur peur. Vers les inconnus dont je ne saurai jamais l’histoire. Vers ceux avec qui je peux vivre et ceux dont je dois rester loin. Il ne les confond pas. Il ne les met pas à égalité. Il reconnaît seulement en chacun cette part de vivant qu’aucun dossier ne pourra contenir.

Je pensais autrefois que l’amour était une adresse.

Je comprends maintenant qu’il est une circulation.

Il ne revient pas nécessairement là où il est né. Il passe. Il prend la forme de ce qu’il rencontre. Il devient protection avec un enfant, patience avec un patient, vérité avec soi, limite avec celui qui blesse, désir avec celui qui attire. Il ne perd pas son unité en changeant de forme. Il prouve au contraire qu’il était plus vaste que son premier objet.

Alors oui, j’aime, encore.

Pas une personne contre le reste du monde. Pas une histoire au détriment de toutes les autres. J’aime la vie sans la croire innocente. J’aime les êtres sans renoncer à juger leurs actes. Je m’aime sans me placer au-dessus d’eux.

Voilà ce qu’il me reste de tout cela. L’amour n’est pas ce qui me ramène en arrière. C’est ce qui agrandit en moi la part du monde que je refuse de laisser mourir.

Et lorsque le fleuve atteint enfin la mer, il ne demande pas aux eaux d’où elles viennent. Il les reçoit sans les confondre.

Il reste l’amour.

Pas tendre au point d’être aveugle.

Pas lucide au point de devenir sec.

Vivant.

I went to Chess club again today for the first time in a while, and I was talking with someone afterwards that I didn’t really get to talk to the first time I met her. She is a psychologist with her own private practice therapy, and she is significantly older than me. She has two kids, both around my age. After the club, we kept talking for a while and covered several different topics. I also realized that my first impression of her as someone who is an older person that is established with their career in a highly educated field, was someone that is wealthy. She bought the food at the bar and tipped, and didn’t really care about the cost of it. Today when we went to 7-Eleven afterwards because she wanted to grab a drink, she spent $30 on scratchers and she said that this is her one vice that she occasionally does, and any money she wins she gives to the school. She also drove a nice BMW convertible. I was a little bit, surprised that she didn’t have another car. However, I don’t know why I expected that she had this as a fun car and drove something else also. I also guess I severely overestimated her wealth. And I don’t mean this at all in a mean way or anything like that, but I guess it was more just in my mind recognizing how I sometimes compare myself or think that I am accurately gauging someone else’s life to some extent in some metric, but I’m not that accurate. I think about one of my other friends that eats out at nice places, and goes on trips pretty frequently. But I also know that she doesn’t really save for a 401(k) because she doesn’t plan on retiring in this country. Also, I know that she cooks very often and I know that that saves money. I guess that I also overestimate how much money there is there, and I also think I underestimate my income. I think I could be better with money and spend less here and there. And I guess I just wanted to recognize the fact that I am sometimes envious to some extent of things that don’t necessarily exist.

Le soir où Élise fit changer les serrures, il pleuvait depuis des heures.

Le serrurier lui tendit cinq clés neuves dans un sachet transparent. Elle les compta deux fois, puis regarda la porte comme si elle attendait déjà de la voir s’ouvrir.

Sur la console reposait une enveloppe envoyée par Paul. À l’intérieur, il y avait son ancienne clé et une phrase écrite à la main.

« Je te la rends comme convenu. »

Élise prit la clé entre deux doigts.

Il avait pu en faire une copie.

Le lendemain, elle installa une caméra face à l’entrée. Chaque nuit, elle regardait les enregistrements. Le palier restait vide. Personne ne touchait à la serrure.

Cette absence aurait dû la rassurer. Elle produisit l’effet inverse.

Un homme qui voulait être vu aurait déjà agi. Paul, lui, attendait. Son silence prouvait sa patience. Les semaines sans incident devenaient la mesure du danger qu’il préparait.

Plus il disparaissait, plus il devenait puissant.

Après dix-huit années de mariage, Élise ne pouvait pas accepter d’être simplement celle qui était partie. Une femme qui quitte doit répondre à des questions. Une femme qui s’échappe n’a rien à expliquer.

Alors elle avait remis leur histoire dans un autre ordre.

Les longues journées de Paul au cabinet étaient devenues des absences calculées. Ses questions étaient des contrôles. Ses colères révélaient son vrai visage. Son calme montrait à quel point il savait le cacher.

Quand il insistait, elle se sentait harcelée.

Quand il renonçait, elle se sentait punie.

Quand il écrivait, elle cherchait la menace entre les lignes.

Quand il ne répondait plus, elle la trouvait dans le silence.

Dans la maison, pourtant, tout continuait de grandir.

L’aîné devait maintenant se baisser pour l’embrasser. Le deuxième avait pris une voix d’homme. Le plus jeune perdait ses dents de lait et glissait sous son oreiller de petits morceaux d’enfance.

Seule la peur d’Élise ne changeait pas.

Un jeudi, sa thérapeute posa son carnet sur ses genoux.

« Que devrait faire Paul pour vous montrer qu’il ne cherche pas à vous nuire ? »

« Me laisser tranquille. »

« C’est ce qu’il fait. »

« Parce qu’il prépare quelque chose. »

« Et s’il vous écrivait qu’il ne veut aucun conflit ? »

« Ce serait une manipulation. »

« S’il vous proposait son aide ? »

« Il chercherait à revenir dans ma vie. »

« S’il ne proposait rien ? »

Élise serra les mâchoires.

« Il voudrait me voir tomber. »

La thérapeute attendit.

« Existe-t-il une seule chose qu’il puisse faire qui vous amènerait à penser que vous vous trompez ? »

Élise regarda la fenêtre.

« Non. »

Le mot resta dans la pièce après son départ.

Quelques jours plus tard, en cherchant l’acte de naissance du plus jeune, Élise retrouva quatre carnets.

Dans le premier, dix-sept ans plus tôt, elle avait écrit :

« Un jour, il me fera payer tout ce que je lui ai dit. »

Dans le deuxième :

« Il attend le bon moment. »

Dans le troisième :

« Quand les enfants seront plus grands, il montrera enfin qui il est. »

Dans le dernier :

« Maintenant que nous sommes séparés, il va agir. »

Élise posa les carnets par ordre de date. Autour d’eux, les photographies racontaient le passage du temps. Un nourrisson était devenu adolescent. Un petit garçon avait perdu ses joues rondes. Son propre visage avait changé. Celui de Paul aussi.

Mais le danger vivait toujours demain.

Les garçons avaient pris dix-huit ans. La menace, elle, était restée au futur.

Le soir même, Élise tendit son téléphone à l’aîné.

« Lis le message de ton père. Dis-moi ce qu’il veut vraiment. »

Le garçon parcourut les quelques lignes, puis retourna le téléphone contre la table.

« Je ne sais pas lequel de vous a raison. Et je ne veux plus le décider. Je veux seulement être votre fils. »

Il monta dans sa chambre.

Élise resta seule devant les quatre carnets.

Paul n’avait pas été un mari parfait. Il avait crié, blessé et fui certaines conversations dans le travail. Mais les pages racontaient rarement ce qu’il avait fait. Elles racontaient surtout ce qu’il allait faire.

Elle comprit alors ce qui la terrifiait depuis son départ.

Pendant dix-huit ans, Paul avait vu ses faiblesses, ses mensonges, ses bontés et ses cruautés. Tant qu’il l’aimait, elle pouvait encore infléchir son regard. Maintenant qu’il vivait loin d’elle, il emportait sa propre mémoire de leur histoire.

Il était devenu un témoin qu’elle ne pouvait plus corriger.

S’il était dangereux, son témoignage ne valait rien. S’il était fou, ses souvenirs devenaient suspects. Le transformer en monstre était encore une façon de régner sur ce qu’il avait vu.

Cette pensée lui donna la nausée.

À la séance suivante, elle raconta les carnets, puis la phrase de son fils.

« S’il n’est pas le monstre, alors c’est moi », murmura-t-elle.

La thérapeute secoua lentement la tête.

« Il existe peut-être une troisième place. Vous pouvez avoir souffert et avoir fait souffrir. Reconnaître un tort ne vous condamne pas à devenir tout entière ce tort. »

Élise ne répondit pas. Pour la première fois, personne ne lui demandait de choisir entre l’innocence et l’anéantissement.

Le dimanche, elle dit à ses fils :

« Je vous ai demandé de porter une peur qui m’appartenait. Vous avez le droit d’aimer votre père sans surveiller mon visage. »

Puis elle écrivit à Paul :

« J’ai parlé de tes intentions comme si je les connaissais. Je ne les connaissais pas. Je vais corriger ce que j’ai affirmé. »

Il ne répondit pas.

L’ancienne histoire se leva aussitôt. Son silence était un piège. Il gardait le message pour s’en servir. Il savourait sa victoire.

Élise ouvrit l’un des carnets et écrivit :

« Il ne répond pas parce que… »

Elle regarda les mots, puis raya les deux derniers.

Il ne répond pas.

Je ne sais pas pourquoi.

Dans la nuit, elle crut de nouveau entendre une clé contre la porte. Elle se redressa, le cœur battant, puis regarda la caméra posée sur la table de chevet.

Elle ne l’ouvrit pas.

La serrure était fermée. Le reste, elle ne le savait pas.

Pour la première fois, cette ignorance ne ressemblait pas à un danger.

Elle ressemblait à une sortie.