oates 》 1st motive : (p · q) ↔ r
A man he encountered once said that murder is a profitless crime. In gambling terms, you might say that it’s a high risk, low reward endeavor. In other words: It’s what people who aren’t thinking do. It’s what stupid people do.
-- The words of the man he’d encountered, not the professor’s, mind you, and it was said in such a bitter, self-admonishing manner, that really, this guy had to be speaking for himself. But it needed to be said in order to paint the picture, to get him to understand. Because he, in his inquisitiveness, with his endless string of questions, he’d asked this man if he understood -- why people kill at all.
‘Put it in a way that can be written in logical notation.’ ‘Alright then, let’s say that “p” stands for “motive.”’
The conversation wasn’t particularly interesting, nor was it particularly enlightening. He might say that the most notable thing about it was that it was disagreeable, but then, it wasn’t so disagreeable that he’d wiped it from memory. On the contrary, he thought about it a lot. He’d been given a corner piece of a puzzle, a building block. A life lesson parents passed down to their children, or a sutra given by a monk to his disciple.
‘We’ll join ‘p’ with a conjunction - “q.”’ ‘Which stands for...?’ ‘The culprit goes too far.’
The truth is, killing someone is “easy” if you think about it like flipping a switch -- or pulling a trigger, swinging a knife, serving up poison -- but “difficult” if you think about it like a job interview -- or public speaking, asking someone out on a date, reconciling with an enemy -- it’s why most culprits, he was told, don’t actually intend to kill their victim.
They simply went too far. They crossed a line. Before they knew it -- the light went out. And they couldn’t take it back anymore.
Ah, but don’t mistake going too far as lacking full intent. Take the phrase as it is. There’s nothing inherently accidental about it. It just so happens that in most cases, that thing called ‘motive’ is actually just some compelling force. But there are cases where that isn’t the case. Every rule has its exceptions.
‘I’m assuming you want a biconditional here?’ ‘Smart kid. We’ll connect ‘r’ with a double arrow. You know what it stands for?’ ‘A crime is committed.’
Has he gotten too conceptual? Did he lose the thread a little - perhaps literally? Truthfully, he’s been making and unmaking shapes with the string in his hands, idly, playing a game of cat’s cradle by himself, the only thing running through his mind a rehash of that long-ago conversation with a man he’d encountered long ago -- no, it was more like that man encountered him, really. But that’s a matter of semantics unrelated to the matter at hand.
One piece of the statement has already been made true, but that’s a variable that exists -- always. Anything might constitute for a motive, really. He’s never denied that fact (he simply never let himself be bothered by it), but when presented with one so blatantly, when given a gift this good, when handed such a convenient excuse...
He might have laughed if he could trust that the sound wouldn’t be cynical.
“There are plenty of ways to get what you want. For example, if you kill someone for their wallet, then the end goal is money - and there are countless ways to make money that aren’t nearly as risky. The act itself is rarely ever worth the result. I guess that’s what they mean when they say that murder isn’t very logical.” “But you asked me to explain it logically anyway? Still, people kill things all the time. They just happen to stop and stare when we commit crimes against ourselves -- that’s the normal thing to do though, isn’t it?”
Possibilities -- are his bread and butter. Understanding how others process and react to information, he knows what a “rational” person is thinking, he knows what an “idealistic” person is thinking, and he knows what a “panicked” person is thinking as well, you know, speaking generally.
But all he can do is wait. The daemon bound by a biconditional, he simply allows the string to fall limply in his palms as their host disappears, that ever-serene smile on his face unwavering despite the cold rain pelting his body, the sudden gloom which settles down upon them like a thick smog.
He wonders how that man he’d encountered (the one who encountered him) would feel about these circumstances. He wishes he could ask him -- if the crime about to be committed here can truly be deemed ‘profitless,’ and whether he truly believes it something natural: like eating, like breathing. And if so -- ...
... He's found himself thinking too much, once again - but then, he's much better at distracting himself than he is at anything else, isn't he?

















