#HesseTogether

Introduction

Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse is my favorite book. I've been reading it every year since I first read it in 2009. I read The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann as part of a Twitter book club with the hast tag #MannTogether. I loved the book and the twitter experience. I'm recruiting thoughtful and passionate readers in hope of reproducing some of he magic with another German Nobel Laureate. Join the seekers and readers for Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha.

Siddhartha is a short and relatively easy read, unlike most of the twitter book club reads (Infinite Jest, Proust, Ulysses, War and Peace, etc). The book is broken into two parts with a total of 12 chapters, ~100-150 pages depending on the copy. Weekly reading would be like watching a 13 episode series on TV. The audiobooks of Siddhartha are ~6-7 hours, so reading the book in one day or even one sitting is very doable. I've read Siddhartha multiple times in one sitting. The book is public domain, see below for free ebook and or audiobook. 

For anyone new to Twitter book clubs, Click here to follow the hashtag #HesseTogether. You can follow #HesseTogether without a Twitter account. To participate in the book club tweet your thoughts, quotes, images, videos, articles, etc by adding the "#HesseTogether" in your tweets. If you'd like to find other twitter book clubs by following @literatureSC. If anyone knows a better method to search twitter book clubs coming up, please share them in the comments. If anyone knows of any great pre-reading talks, videos, articles, or images please share those too! 

I have a few experimental ideas to pair with the reading. See the "Interactive Challenges and Activities" section below. I'm currently drafting the activities, check back later if they're still incomplete.

If this goes well, I'll probably do it again next year.

3 Options

There will be three options: weekly, daily, or in one sitting. All three options will finish Siddhartha by New Years Day!

There are several twitter book clubs in progress, so readers interested can choose whichever fits their schedule best and still enjoy the book club community.

Read the book weekly, daily, or in one sitting by New Years Eve or New Years Day 2023.

I'm planning to do all three. So no matter which option you choose, you'll have at least one person joining you. I also want to do a podcast series on the book. If you're interested in chatting for a podcast, message me on twitter or leave a comment. I'm potentially interest in any chapter, section, idea, or aspect of the book.

Weekly Schedule

                        Part I
Week 1, 15 Oct-  Chapter 1: "The Son of the Brahmin"
Week 2, 22 Oct-  Chapter 2: "With the Samanas"
Week 3, 29 Oct-  Chapter 3: "Gotama"
Week 4,   5 Nov- Chapter 4: "Awakening"
                        Part II
Week 5,  12 Nov- Chapter 5:  "Kamala"
Week 6,  19 Nov- Chapter 6:  "With the Childlike People"
Week 7,  26 Nov- Chapter 7:  "Sansara"
Week 8,     3 Dec- Chapter 8:  "By the River"
Week 9,   10 Dec- Chapter 9:  "The Ferryman"
Week 10, 17 Dec- Chapter 10: "The Son"
Week 11, 24 Dec- Chapter 11: "Om"
Week 12, 31 Dec- Chapter 12: "Govinda"

Daily Schedule

                        Part I
Day   1,  20 Dec-  Chapter 1: "The Son of the Brahmin"
Day   2,  21 Dec-  Chapter 2: "With the Samanas"
Day   3,  22 Dec-  Chapter 3: "Gotama"
Day   4,  23 Dec-  Chapter 4: "Awakening"
                        Part II
Day   5,   24 Dec- Chapter 5:  "Kamala"
Day   6,   25 Dec- Chapter 6:  "With the Childlike People"
Day   7,   26 Dec- Chapter 7:  "Sansara"
Day   8,   27 Dec- Chapter 8:  "By the River"
Day   9,   28 Dec- Chapter 9:  "The Ferryman"
Day   10, 29 Dec- Chapter 10: "The Son"
Week 11, 30 Dec- Chapter 11: "Om"
Week 12, 31 Dec- Chapter 12: "Govinda"
 

Interactive Activities

Feel free to participate in any, all, or none of the activities. The activities are linked to the reading. They are intended to parallel Siddhartha's journey. This should be something enjoyable. Engage as a form of play with varying opportunities for fun, exploration, a new experiences, and if lucky enlightenment. If you're unsure about your ability to perform any of the following activities, please consult your physician.

The real reason for this is because I want to justify gambling (with fake money), see Activity 7.

• Activity 1- stand at attention. Set a timer and or stopwatch, and measure how long you can stand at attention without fidgeting, leaning body weight to a side, bending knees, etc. Also a good diagnostic for back strength. If you back is sore or aching, you probably need to strengthen your back.
• Activity 2- fast. It can be for any length of time, see intermittent fasting for ideas to fit your lifestyle.
  
• Activity 3- attend a local guru's lecture. It can be any topic. Find The One!
• Activity 4- when it is time to go home for the day, go somewhere else. (you can go home after the someone else if you choose).
• Activity 5- use your own imagination for this one!
• Activity 6- stop to spend time getting to know someone who Kamaswami would think is a waste of time and money.
• Activity 7- online poker night! They'll be two nights, one for the weekly and one for the daily. I'll share a link on twitter for everyone to join the same poker room. Maybe we can do a zoom conference and play poker. More details to come.
  
• Activity 8- find any body of water. Sit, relax, and appreciate the water.
• Activity 9- find someone who has a story to tell, listen to them and attempt to give them all your attention. Ask a question if you must, but don't share, just listen.
• Activity 10- discipline your child, they probably need it :).
• Activity 11 & 12- "Om!"

Public Domain Ebook and Audiobook 

• Siddhartha at Standard Ebooks
• Siddhartha in German and English translation from Project Gutenberg
• Siddhartha public domain audiobook at LibriVox

Pre-Reading Resources

• Intro in Buddhism
• Intro to Hinduism
• Hesse's Wiki Bio
• Penguin Random House Reading Guide

Wild or Lab Thought Experiment

Thought Experiment

Aliens abduct you. You're given two choices.

1st choice- live the rest of your life in a hunter gather tribe of humans. The tribe lives in an environment that humans naturally evolved, on Earth about 30,000 years BCE. Humans born into the tribes environment have a life expectancy of ~35 years. The aliens will assure you're accepted into a tribe. After your initial acceptance, all survival will depend on your ability to adapt into the new tribe and environment.

2nd choice- live the rest of your life as a subject in a controlled study. Humans born into controlled studies by the aliens have a life expectancy of ~70 years. You won't know any other details about the study other than the life expectancy of participants.

Vote here!


Background

I was having a conversation about lab animals. I'm ignorant of the general life and life expectancy of lab animals. I know of horrible studies and studies that sound pretty awesome. I get that many lab animals suffer, but animals suffer in the wild too. So that sparked my thought experiment. What if lab animals had higher life expectancies than they would in the wild? If lab animals did have higher life expectancies, that would make an argument (a strong argument in my opinion) that animals might prefer to be lab animals. Either way, animals wouldn't be able to give consent.

Thinking about what humans would choose interests me. Below are some interesting facts about animals in research from the journal article "The laboratory rat: Age and body weight matter."

"Using animals to model human anatomy and physiology dates back to 600 BC [25]. The importance of animal research in biomedical sciences is evident when we know that about 90 % of Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine have been related to research done on animals [79]. It has been estimated that more than 115 million animals were used for research purposes in 2005 [111]. Rodents are the most common animals used in animal experimentations [51]; [36]; [49]), constituting about 80 % of experimental animals [99]." The laboratory rat: Age and body weight matter

Life Expectancy of Lab Animals


I'm mildly curious in looking up data later, but I probably won't.

 

October afterthought

The thought experiment should be would you rather be born into the wild or lab? That is a closer comparison. Because lab animals (humans are animals) wouldn't have the proper survival skills if they were born into the controlled environments of a lab. But maybe many wild animals would prefer the controlled setting over the struggles of life in the wild? I guess that's for another thought experiment.

Thomas Jefferson and the Best Hearts in the World

I recently finished The Hemings of Monticello. I heard an interview with the author, Annette Gordon-Reed, years ago and I was extremely fascinated with the complexity and contradictions she mentioned surrounding Jefferson. Anyone trying to paint Jefferson as an exceptionally great or exceptionally terrible person, is either ignorant or misinformed. The remaining writings and evidence of Jefferson's life are difficult to reconcile without acknowledging that Jefferson was a conflicted person. Overall, Jefferson and the Hemings' story are tragic and disappointing.

The book is full of insights into US history, 18th century customs, and of course the US institution of slavery. There were several passages or details I wanted to explore. Below is a quote that sparked my interests and captures the contradictions and conflicting nature of Jefferson:

"[Jefferson] casts doubt on blacks’ equal intellectual capacity, Jefferson expressed his greatest confidence in blacks, besides his opinion that they had better rhythm than whites, in matters of the heart stating with great certainty that nature had done them “justice” in that department. These formulations about people of African origin—skepticism of their equal intellectual capacity and certainty about the quality of their hearts—were ideas from which he apparently never wavered. According to one visitor to Monticello late in Jefferson’s life, he echoed these sentiments, saying that he had not yet found a true “genius” among blacks, but believed that they had the “best hearts of any people in the world.”13 Sally Hemings, then, combined what Jefferson regarded as the best in white people with what he regarded as the best in black people, an evidently appealing blend of the head and the heart."

The source for the "best hearts of any people in the world” was not easy to track down. For one, Gordon-Reed used the wrong title of the article in her references. The "book-peddling visitor of Thomas Jefferson" was Samuel Whitcomb. Whitcomb recorded those notes after an interview with Jefferson on 31 May 1824 (Jefferson died in 1826). The notes were published here, "A Book Peddler Invades Monticello" by William Peden (1949).

"[Jefferson] says the south agrees with the Negroes best-that the experiment
now making at Hayti is very interesting. He hopes well of their [i.e.,
Negroes'] minds though [he] has never seen evidence of genius among them,
but they are possessed of the best hearts of any people in the world. Great
levity of character, etc. On account of the prejudice of our Nation against
the black, he would defer treating with the haytians as long as possible,
but we must certainly acknowledge their independence."

This is one of many issues with Jefferson. Why doesn't Jefferson see evidence of genius in blacks? And while rejecting genius, what does it mean to say black people have "best heart?" Is it because the geniuses Jefferson witnessed were mixed and he attributed their genius to whiteness? Or were black people in Jefferson's day not given enough resources and opportunities to produce geniuses? From the 21st century, it's easy to see how multiple biases were used to discredit the abilities of black people. But how and why does a slave owner claim black people have the "best hearts?" Is the quality of ones' heart greater than their mind? Unfortunately, Jefferson doesn't explain, or if he did no evidence remains.

One of the most interesting things I learned about Jefferson was his avoidance and dislike of confrontations. This trait can account for, not excuse, a lot of Jefferson's contradictions. Jefferson wanted a private life without drama, many people should relate. Jefferson, for many reasons from being extremely intelligent to being extremely influential, knew his time a lot better than you or I did. For that reason I'm not supporting or condemning him. Disappointment is the right word. It's disappointing that Jefferson didn't do more and better.

Anyone interested should read or listen to The Hemings of Monticello. It'll be a lot better than anything I can write or say.

Closing idea:

Racism as a percentile. This can only work as a thought experiment, but what percentile racist would Jefferson be? Among all Americans between 1780-1820, what percentile is Jefferson? 

Think of an objective measure to score. I'm thinking if everyone was put in Jefferson's position when he married Martha Wayles. Would other people sell more or less slaves? Would they treat their slaves better or worse than Jefferson (if black people were given white slaves, if women were given a gender reversal, etc)? 

I don't know my answer yet. I'll have to think about it more. Among white men in Virginia, I think Jefferson is one of the least racist. But when adding women and northerers? It gets a lot harder to say. Just because norther states didn't have slavery or abolished it sooner, doesn't necessarily make them less racist. I also don't think the level of racism would relate well with amount of slaves people owned.

If any readers are feeling bold enough, drop a comment with your percentile for Jefferson. Let's say 100th percentile is the least racist person alive then, and 0 percentile is the most racist person alive at the time.

Take it inward now!

What percent racist are you? I challenge you not to frame this thought experiment in a manner that favors you resulting in a greater outcome. I assume we all think we are a lot less racist than we are.

Christians Understnding Atheists

I have a running discussion with a couple friends who love C.S Lewis. I usually refer to Lewis as a mad at God atheist. I haven't thoroughly read Lewis, but from The Problem of Pain and other excepts of Lewis' work, Lewis doesn't present the best atheist ideas, maybe he does this intentionally.

For my friends, below is an except from a Christian who has an excellent understanding of atheism. This except is from Book 5, Chapter 1, of War and Peace. Pierre, one of the wealthiest people in Russia in the story, has recently separated with his wife after shooting her suspected lover in a duel.

Pierre's atheism at the moment is one of depression, desperation, and despair. I don't mean to suggest that this is what atheism is. Atheist are as diverse ideological as any other group. In fact atheists as a group are probably more diverse because you have atheist coming from all religions and beliefs, and atheists do not have any texts that are essential to their disbelief in a God.

Pierre is waiting at a poststation in Torzhok:

The postmaster, his wife, the valet, and a peasant woman selling Torzhók embroidery came into the room offering their services. Without changing his careless attitude, Pierre looked at them over his spectacles unable to understand what they wanted or how they could go on living without having solved the problems that so absorbed him. He had been engrossed by the same thoughts ever since the day he returned from Sokólniki after the duel and had spent that first agonizing, sleepless night. But now, in the solitude of the journey, they seized him with special force. No matter what he thought about, he always returned to these same questions which he could not solve and yet could not cease to ask himself. It was as if the thread of the chief screw which held his life together were stripped, so that the screw could not get in or out, but went on turning uselessly in the same place.

The stripped screw metaphor is perfect. There is a deep philosophical idea, and the idea keeps one stuck in place. Always coming back to these same questions. Unable to accept or deny them, just stripped. Tolstoy continues:

The postmaster came in and began obsequiously to beg his excellency to wait only two hours, when, come what might, he would let his excellency have the courier horses. It was plain that he was lying and only wanted to get more money from the traveler.

“Is this good or bad?” Pierre asked himself. “It is good for me, bad for another traveler, and for himself it’s unavoidable, because he needs money for food; the man said an officer had once given him a thrashing for letting a private traveler have the courier horses. But the officer thrashed him because he had to get on as quickly as possible. And I,” continued Pierre, “shot Dólokhov because I considered myself injured, and Louis XVI was executed because they considered him a criminal, and a year later they executed those who executed him—also for some reason. What is bad? What is good? What should one love and what hate? What does one live for? And what am I? What is life, and what is death? What power governs all?”

Pierre isn't confident in his atheism. Tolstoy is setting up Pierre for a conversion. It's as if Tolstoy is begging the question with Pierre. Tolstoy continues:

There was no answer to any of these questions, except one, and that not a logical answer and not at all a reply to them. The answer was: “You’ll die and all will end. You’ll die and know all, or cease asking.” But dying was also dreadful.

Here is where Tolstoy shines. The narrator steps in with an objective look. There are two options: something or nothing. Tolstoy continues:

The Torzhók peddler woman, in a whining voice, went on offering her wares, especially a pair of goatskin slippers. “I have hundreds of rubles I don’t know what to do with, and she stands in her tattered cloak looking timidly at me,” he thought. “And what does she want the money for? As if that money could add a hair’s breadth to happiness or peace of mind. Can anything in the world make her or me less a prey to evil and death?—death which ends all and must come today or tomorrow—at any rate, in an instant as compared with eternity.” And again he twisted the screw with the stripped thread, and again it turned uselessly in the same place.

His servant handed him a half-cut novel, in the form of letters, by Madame de Souza. He began reading about the sufferings and virtuous struggles of a certain Emilie de Mansfeld. “And why did she resist her seducer when she loved him?” he thought. “God could not have put into her heart an impulse that was against His will. My wife—as she once was—did not struggle, and perhaps she was right. Nothing has been found out, nothing discovered,” Pierre again said to himself. “All we can know is that we know nothing. And that’s the height of human wisdom.”

Everything within and around him seemed confused, senseless, and repellent. Yet in this very repugnance to all his circumstances Pierre found a kind of tantalizing satisfaction.

This isn't the best conclusion for atheism, but it feels more authentic than Lewis. The problem I had was Lewis using atheism to make arguments for Christianity. That's all good and well for Christians, but not for atheists. Tolstoy, although a devout Christian, is more concerned with capturing the psychology and complexity of his characters. Tolstoy's characters convert, like Lewis: the atheist become Christians. But I believe Tolstoy's characters! Lewis seems like a teenager who was mad at God and left his faith for a while.

Maybe this is my bias. Tolstoy captures my ideas about humanity, and I dislike Lewis'. If one was going to change my perspectives they'd need to have a Tolstoy approach, not a Lewis approach.

Quote from The Decline of the West

“From the child of five to myself is but a step. But from the new-born baby to the child of five is an appalling distance,” said Tolstoi once. Here, in the decisive moments of existence, when man first becomes man and realizes his immense loneliness in the universal, the world-fear reveals itself for the first time as the essentially human fear in the presence of death, the limit of the light-world, rigid space. Here, too, the higher thought origi­nates as meditation upon death. Every religion, every scientific investigation, every philosophy proceeds from it. Every great symbolism attaches its form-1 language to the cult of the dead, the forms of disposal of the dead, the adornment of the graves of the dead." Oswald Spangler's The Decline of the West

Did Apple at the Core reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

http://libertygalaxy.com/videos/DeclineOfTheWestSpengler.pdf

Better translation

Deducing Moral Judgements

"You cannot deduce a moral judgement from facts about the natural world," says Peter Singer in agreement to the is/ought problem.

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason." David Hume A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)

So how is one to decide a moral judgement?

According to philosophers, like David Hume or Peter Singer, one needs to use more formal logic to deduce a conclusion. One can use facts. One can make arguments. But one shouldn't suggest, as Hume might state, that because x is, or is not, that y ought, or ought not, be done. 

I'm not sure anyone who deduces moral judgements will accept this, but if you're open to the idea, leave a comment and I can say more.

Gotham City Economics, Inequality, and the Gini Coefficient

If Gotham is such a terrible place to live, why do people live there?

From a group chats: "[The Batman (2022)] made me really afraid of Gotham. It’s the worst fucking place to grow up. Can you imagine growing up in a space with no possibility?" "Very rich, very poor, and no in between."

I agree based off movies and comics, Gotham appears to be a city with zero opportunities for its people. But is that possible?

Sure, it's possible. But a zero opportunity Gotham is so unlikely, the ideas shouldn't be considered.

Too lazy to read? Watch the below YouTube video of the article produced by Kier Gomes.

Gotham City

Gotham City is mostly observed from Batman's point of views, with The Joker and Harley Quinn the top two alternatives. Batman sleeps all day, and stays up all night fighting and tracking criminals. Viewers see a very biased view of Gotham City.

Off screen, during normal human waking hours, Gotham should be a lot more like NYC, Chicago, or other large cities. Lots of people, lots of businesses, lots of problems, but also lots of opportunity, along with the crime and corruption that makes Gotham infamous. Gotham is going to have safe and affluent areas that Batman and viewers never see.

From the Batman Wiki Fandom:

"Gotham City is a major economic center within the United States of the DC Multiverse; its important industries include: manufacturing; shipping; finance; fine arts, represented by its numerous museums, galleries, and jewelers; and the production of giant novelty props. In addition to its commercial seaport, it also supports a naval shipyard.

Major businesses based in Gotham City include its most noteworthy corporation: Wayne Enterprises, which specializes in various industrial aspects and advanced technological research and development."

Even if the Gotham City was run by criminals profiting from the exploitation of its people, there has to be people with capitol (money or assets) to exploit. Gotham doesn't have slavery and it isn't post apocalyptic. The streets are crowded with people. The bridges are functioning and full of cars. There are skyscrapers. Even if criminals own most of the buildings, they are renting them to companies and people. Companies need employees to run their operations. Those employees need places live, places to eat, places to shop, places to send their offspring while they work, places to get medical attention, places to be safe, etc. 

We get the cable news view of Gotham City.

Gotham can't have millions of people without millions of jobs. Below is a list of the top companies in NYC, as a reference point. The second list is the biggest employers employees physically working in NYC, the data is pre-covid. Just the top 10 companies in NYC alone employed over one million people. 

 

You can't make money without people. These companies can't survive or succeed without a working/middle class to run the operations. Gotham City has to have something to offer companies, and part of it has to be a working class. In return those companies have to offer something for employees.

It's possible Gotham City's corruption could turn Gotham into a tax haven for corporations. In that case, the largest corporations wouldn't employ many people. But that doesn't explain where all the people on the streets, subways, and bridges are going.

It is more likely that Gotham, especially based on the wiki information, has a large working and middle class with time and money to spend on the industries mentioned.

If there weren't opportunities for people in Gotham, the working and middle class, along with the business sectors would leave Gotham City for better prospects. Gotham is a dangerous place to live. In order to take on the risks of living, commuting, and working in Gotham, people and businesses need more than money. They need opportunities, entertainment, culture, and all the aspects of urban life that attract people to cities.

An entrepreneur isn't going to attempt starting a business in Gotham if their isn't potential profits to out weight the risks and stress of dealing with corruption and crime. Existing companies would face a similar choice. 

Analogy: Wade School has a bully who is stealing student's lunch money everyday. Students get $5 for lunch, and the bully takes $3, so students are left with $2 for lunch each day. Students find out that there is another school, Wilson School, they can to attend. Wilson School will cost students $1 day to attend, and Wilson School's bully is nicer, he only takes $1 each day from students' (the bullyees?) lunch money. If students move schools they'll profit $1 each days, $3 instead of $2. Assuming a students main priority is having the most lunch money (a businesses' profits in this analogy), rational students will move to Wilson School. That's exactly what Gotham businesses would do.

If Gotham is as corrupt and dangerous as it appears, there must be a lot of money to be made for multiple classes of people. Money is the reason why people risk their lives and integrity to live and work in Gotham. Otherwise, most people wouldn't take the risk. Think of a recent high school or college graduate, why would they stay in Gotham or migrate to Gotham? Why not move to a safe prosperous cities that doesn't host a comic book series worth of villains and crime?

If at some point Gotham became too corrupt and dangerous, people and companies would flea and Gotham would soon collapse.

There are correlations between inequality and murder rates in US cities. And Gotham is constantly described with growing crime, it is safe to assume Gotham has large inequities. So, first conclusions: Gotham City is showing negative affects of extreme inequality, like crime, violence, poverty, and corruption. Second conclusion: Although likely in economic decline, Gotham has opportunities for working, middle, and upper classes. Third conclusion: Gotham needs a large middle class to sustain its title of "major economic center."

Inequality in Gotham City

Gini coefficient, or gini index, is an interesting measure of inequality. Although gini indexes are used to measure a variety of inequalities, the gini index most commonly measures wealth or income inequalities, income being a lot easier to measure. The gini index alone is not a useful or accurate stat. But combined with other measures and looking at the Lorenz Curve below, it gives a more complete view.

A gini index of 1.0 means one person possesses everything. A gini index of 0.0 means all people possess the same exact amount.

The first chart is a list of the highest gini indexes in the US. The second chart compares the lowest 20% of people's income, middle 60% of people's income, and highest highest 20% of people's income. 

One thing to consider, the US Census data does not account for people who live in different cities and commute to work. If most higher wage earners in NYC live in New Jersey, that gives a misleading gini index of the greater area as a whole.

Lorenz curves are more complete visuals of inequalities. The below lorenz curve visualizes how inequality increases as the curved lines move further away from the linear green "equal wealth" line.

Below visualizes one of the limitation of the gini index. Populations with an equal gini indexes can, and will, have different distributions at the tops and bottoms of their populations. Both curves below have a gini index of 0.6. But the peach curve has ~25% of their lowest earners making very close to 0 income. And the blue curve has about ~10% of its highest earners making over 50% of the income. When the blue curve is linear (a straight line) that means all those people are making the same amount. The peach curve is displaying that higher earners make more and more. (pause to examine the two graphs and conceptualize the differences).

  

So what is Gotham City's gini index and lorenz curve?

This question depends on a lot of economic factors that Batman stories do not provide. Where do most people live in Gotham? How segregated are the different classes of people in Gotham and the surrounding areas? How many workers in Gotham commute from another city or suburb?

Gotham has to have at least one of the following, or both, for its middle and working classes: 

1. nice parts of the city
   
2. safe places to live outside, but within, commuting distance of Gotham City. 

It is possible that Gotham City could be all "very rich, very poor, and no in between," but only if practically all of the workers live outside of Gotham City.

Fourth conclusion: Gotham City's working/middle class live within the Gotham area.

How Much Inequality is Possible before Gotham collapses?

At what point would a city economically collapse from inequality?

If people were too poor to buy anything, the rich would start to lose their wealth and income by supporting the poor. South Africa consistently is reported as the country with the highest gini index for income, around 0.63, higher than any US city. But even with all South Africa's corruption and racism, their gini index drops when adjusted for social welfare (I didn't find a good source for this, but I think the idea is worth considering even if it might not be 100% accurate). 

Globally, the gini indexes are calculated to be as high or higher than South Africa's, between 0.6-0.7. 

If we go look at the countries with economies that collapsed, wars, political unrest, and unstable institutions are the primary factors. These factors could be influenced by inequalities in wealth, but they don't seem to be the main causes.

This question, "how much inequality is possible," requires a lot more rigorous analysis and economical understanding than I hoped. If an economist has studied this question, I was unable to find their work yet.

How could Gotham economically collapse from income/wealth inequality? It's an interesting thought experiment.

At some unknown inequality, companies will lose too much money. They'll either move, go out of business, or barely survive. As businesses go bankrupt and move to other cities, more rentals will be vacant. The vacancies will drive down the cost of rent. Can could bring more poor people to the low rents and sustain or increase inequality more. But at some point, investors will want to return to make money...

In a globally or even nationally connected society, it's hard to see a situation with all rich and all poor people living together without a middle class.

Detroit is the best example of a collapsed economy in the US. Detroit isn't in the top 10 US cities. I'm speculating now, but where are their rich people? Did they stay or did they go? When opportunities decline for most people, that's not good for business.

At some point inequality is bad for business, and rich people leave, making an area more equal. Fifth conclusion: Gotham will most likely never reach a point of rich people having everything and poor people havnig nothing.

 

Resources/Further Reading

Glaeser, Edward, et al. “Urban Inequality.” 2008, https://doi.org/10.3386/w14419.

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-09-21/us-cities-with-the-biggest-income-inequality-gaps

"The primary weakness of the Gini coefficient is that it tends to under-emphasize changes in the top 10% or lower 40% of the population, and emphasize changes in the middle." 

https://movieweb.com/is-batman-bad-for-gotham-city/

https://www.facebook.com/seizethemeans/posts/batman-and-the-economics-of-gothamalthough-there-are-several-versions-and-univer/385832295110488/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffewing/2018/07/18/two-complicated-economic-implications-of-the-dark-knight-trilogy/?sh=2344942f17ea

http://economicstudents.com/2013/01/what-economics-can-teach-us-about-batman/

http://www.centives.net/S/2012/is-batman-keeping-gotham-city-poor/