Mays Street & Old Settlers Park
The Tale of Ants
RECEIVED Fri., Jan. 14, 2022
Dear Editor,
I'd never heard of the Big Mouth sitcom before, so it took a bit of research to understand your answers in your “Commitment” [“An Unsatisfactory Level of Commitment,” Luv Doc, Jan. 7] article.
You have an interesting take on things. It's almost like reading science fiction in a way; and a story where you as the writer are transmogrified into a homunculus, and then you are set free to wander about in an abandoned ants nest. Your keen observational skills allow you to, in your own unique way, describe to your readers the dimensions, geologic composition, and in fact, every twist and turn, ad nauseum, until the whole place appears to the reader to be mapped out in fine detail.
But what about the tale of ants that created the whole thing? If you compare the motives behind the creating of an ant colony to that of humans when creating relationships, just how much do humans behave like ants, meaning also likely to behave instinctively? There are areas of overlap to be sure. After all, both ants and humans seem blind to what's really happening, as well as to what will actually be produced in the end by their toiling. In both too there's a randomness and a compromise to nearly every part of the building process. That said, you don't have to be E.O. Wilson to know that in both cases instinct itself gives out a very simple set of collective instructions that, when carried out at the individual level, produce exquisitely detailed results. It's those simple biological influences to human behavior you seem to steadfastly avoid writing about. I wonder why that is?
By the way, I'm still trying to digest your comment to me some time back about Bill Clinton being the greatest living president. At least I feel comfortable now in thinking that you're not likely to substitute our current president as the new president to take old Bill off of that same top spot you put him on.
I'd never heard of the Big Mouth sitcom before, so it took a bit of research to understand your answers in your “Commitment” [“An Unsatisfactory Level of Commitment,” Luv Doc, Jan. 7] article.
You have an interesting take on things. It's almost like reading science fiction in a way; and a story where you as the writer are transmogrified into a homunculus, and then you are set free to wander about in an abandoned ants nest. Your keen observational skills allow you to, in your own unique way, describe to your readers the dimensions, geologic composition, and in fact, every twist and turn, ad nauseum, until the whole place appears to the reader to be mapped out in fine detail.
But what about the tale of ants that created the whole thing? If you compare the motives behind the creating of an ant colony to that of humans when creating relationships, just how much do humans behave like ants, meaning also likely to behave instinctively? There are areas of overlap to be sure. After all, both ants and humans seem blind to what's really happening, as well as to what will actually be produced in the end by their toiling. In both too there's a randomness and a compromise to nearly every part of the building process. That said, you don't have to be E.O. Wilson to know that in both cases instinct itself gives out a very simple set of collective instructions that, when carried out at the individual level, produce exquisitely detailed results. It's those simple biological influences to human behavior you seem to steadfastly avoid writing about. I wonder why that is?
By the way, I'm still trying to digest your comment to me some time back about Bill Clinton being the greatest living president. At least I feel comfortable now in thinking that you're not likely to substitute our current president as the new president to take old Bill off of that same top spot you put him on.
Roland Moore
