the following post is for people like me: neurotic, depressed, middle-class-ish people whose most recurring problem is shame, anxiety, and executive dysfunction (rather than abuse or oppression, for example)

it strikes me that all this stuff about beginner's mind, letting yourself be cringe, becoming siller, imperfectionism, improv mindset, abundance mindset, etc. is all downstream-ish of 1) secure attachment and 2) non-coercively / compassionately working through internal conflicts.

and it strikes me that these two things are themselves downstream (in the moment-to-moment) of 1) relaxing (nervous system regulation) and 2) listening (mindful awareness of what you previously ignored or couldn't see).

like, i think all the advice we could give about eating frogs, atomic habits, changing your mindset, "fuck it we ball," etc. are really only sustainable when they are mixed into a broth that already contains (at least some) secure attachment, some experience of unconditional belonging in the world and to God, and having gotten love so that you can give love. these are the basis for healing the shame that causes us to run from God, from ourselves, from others, and from the world.

as lulie jokes, "keeping on top of your emails and messages is easy, just be born with secure attachment".

"Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is."

this is so indescribable to me. "we will be like him, for we will see him as he is."

sight is not a minor metaphor in the scriptures, of course, but i am only beginning to realize the intertwining between sight, desire, and being.

we are what we desire, and we desire what we see, and we see what we desire.

it's all there, from the forbidden fruit being pleasing to the woman's eyes, to the eye being the lamp of the body (matthew 6:22), to the hymn "be thou my vision."

lord, i pray, be thou my vision - that i may see you, in order to see everything else.

haven't finished it, but andrew root's mapping out of the three pathways of transformation is helpful:

1. the inner expressive genius

2. heroic action

3. confession and surrender - encounter with inbreaking transcendance

it strikes me that the first two pathways entirely describe tpot philosophy: 1) visa's introspect, impro, the creative act, do 100 things, etc. 2) high agency, friendly ambitious nerds (to be honest, i'm guessing that this second pathway better describes lefty activism).

but root's map is so helpful, insofar as it helps me clarify what felt so "off" with visakan's thought vis-a-vis the faith i have received. now i know, we are all trying to commune with the infinite, we are all trying to be transformed into the infinite, we are all searching for ascent and apotheosis.

visakan's thought is the mystical way of the cross, albeit sung in a major key.

this is why i'm so hungry for creativity, why i'm so haunted by creative people who do stuff. it's the search for infinity. my pathway is blocked; i feel shut out of infinity.

i can only (failingly) trust that here in the darkness of the wretched, there shines a great light.

the basis of popular conservatism is "i hate having to pay you my attention."

you can see it everywhere: the preoccupation with attention whores, with playing the victim card, people self-diagnosing for attention, the concept of "virtue signalling," the 2014-era slur of "special snowflake."

their ire is reserved for people who are trying to get special attention. nobody, the conservative reasons, deserves special attention from me.

and if you asked these people, of course they would have rational arguments about why self-diagnosis is dangerous or whatever, but their disdain (in my opinion) stems from hating the fact that you are asking them to care about you.

but, at its heart, what is actually so bad about attention whoring? it's annoying sure, but what is the danger? and why not see it as a cause for compassion (the idea being that attention whoring is an expression of some core unmet need)

it strikes me that arguments about "equality" miss the heart of why the left cares about equality.

right-wing people will go on about IQ differences, differences between the sexes, etc., and how these differences are natural.

and the left (rightly so!) will rebut that the story is more complicated: these differences are cultural, the measurement of these differences measures the outcome of social histories rather than immutable differences inscribed into flesh and bone by god himself.

but these arguments are tangential to why it matters that there is gender parity in justin trudeau's cabinet.

it's not just about being fair (though it is), it's not just about correcting past injustices (though it is).

at the heart of the left is this principle: the struggle against domination. that no person should have their choices made by another. that no person should have their life determined by another. that people should not have power over each another person against their will.

this is the thread which connects medieval peasant rebellions against enclosure, 18th century anti-monarchism, and modern anti-capitalist struggles in the Global South. it is self-government or autonomy, that people should not be dependent on an overlord for their livelihood.

this is the debt jubilee, this is prison abolition, this is communism. this is freedom (not bourgeois, classical liberal freedom), release for the captives.

in summary: equality matters because it is a proxy for the equal dignity of people to make choices, to not require someone else to make choices for them on their behalf.

gender equality from this view, then, is merely stating that women should not have men make choices for them, that women know best how to make choices for women. the alternative is to say: yes, it's okay for men to make all the decisions.

taken to its logical conclusion, yes, this view leads to anarchism and direct democracy. i'd rather argue about that, rather than defend endlessly something that should be obvious: that i don't need to guarantee the identity of women to men to guarantee equal access to power and decision-making.

another way to frame the dichotomy between materialism and idealism:

there are some who believe that the war is, ultimately, over the names of things.

these are the people who believe that the IDF are in the right, because after all, they are the "Israel Defense Forces," so how could they be the aggressor?

these people believe that the problem is the slogans: "Black Lives Matter," and "Defund the Police." Aren't there better ways to say these things?

when given the argument that the bible isn't an instruction manual, these people rebut: "but it is! after all, B.I.B.L.E: basic instructions before leaving earth."

maybe i'm being condescending, but there seems to me a stark divide between some group of people and another group of people who place their trust in slogans and witticisms.

i realize that i'm basically saying the same thing as innuendo studios

capitalism values people insofar as they are profitable, useful, continually "productive," and marketable,

rather than the truth that people are unconditionally worthy of love regardless of the above.

i want to say it out loud.

my writing, my thinking, my living.

it is for depressed, weary people.

i'm realizing that it always has been

i feel like things make more sense with this in mind.

a letter to myself:

hey self, the reason that you're so tired is that you're being pelagian without the augustinianism.

the order is acceptance, then commitment. you accept the problem before you can really address it.

as richard beck says, "Attempting to follow and obey the law--righteous works--is not the problem. Obeying God's law is never a problem."

wanting things to be better is never a problem. the problem is that we lack the capacity and power to make things better. the problem is that we judge others when they lack the capacity and power to make things better. that we judge ourselves when we lack the capacity and power to make things better (matthew 23:3-4).

christ died for something. christ died because we cannot. christ died because we cannot.

it is okay that we cannot. christ died so that we may be able, but christ died because we cannot.

the techniques and technologies of humanism/high anthropology/etc. are fine (i am suspicious of people who are anti-techniques and anti-technologies). it's okay to try to better things. but christ died because we cannot.

a final note: improvisation is the antidote to anxiety over uncertainty, but christ died because we cannot improvise our way out of ourselves.

PART TWO

on the other hand: as i read david zahl's low anthropology, i am struck by how unconvinced i am that the answer is reducible to admitting our incapacity. it is not simply confession.

the bible is a library, a collection of diverse voices, a manifold witness. and by the inspiration of the holy spirit, scripture also contains the directive to choose! to choose life.

the act of the admission of our incapacity does not take someplace outside of real life, with its tangible antagonisms and injustices, outside of choosing, outside of failure in action. we are not saved by our confession, as if getting an answer right. we are saved by the spirit of god and his christ.

to me, the experience of grace is not limited to a worldview change (from high anthropology to low), but it must be the experience of the spirit's creative power in our lives. it must be the concrete experience of being empowered to choose life, though not by our strength and not on our clock (i am a pentecostal, after all - ha ha).

i don't know where else to put this

• was feeling foul and ashamed
• i told the devil that i wouldn't believe his lies, and that god's kingdom was near to me
• so i went onto my bed. i let my body shake and writhe and go taut and grasp and yell and groan and -
• i don't really know what the effects of this was
• but all i know is that i felt stuck in "narrow focus" mode and that my attention was not very broad
• i told god that i didn't know how to listen, and he reminded me that i did
• so i collapsed and listened
• the most interesting part is that as soon as i left that space, my mind immediately redirected towards thinking of how to communicate this to isabel and rosalind
• and i had never really been so aware of that mental redirection before. it was as if i "left" myself and was in a different mode where i was working to exist for others
• holy spirit invited me to come back and just stay "within" myself, grounded in the holy spirit's presence within me
• and i felt peace, a peace that made me want to stay with myself longer. for a moment i understood why joshua stayed in the tent of meeting
• i said "this is escapism, isn't it," and i felt god say: "yes, it probably is, but you do worse forms of escapism all the time"
• and after some time, i got up.

46 blogposts since i started looking for a job in october

and not one of them have been about my job search.

even now i'm only writing about it because i'm picking up on the weirdness of how this currently significant part of my life is not at all appearing in my thinking or my writing. it's like a vast space of my mind covered up with an emptiness labelled "here be dragons."

i've talked about it with some people irl, but i'm surprised that i haven't blogged about it.

well, not that surprising, i am pretty committed to avoiding thinking about it.

all i can say is sometimes i feel so ashamed about it that i cry. i wish it were easier (to do, to think about, to talk about, to live).

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (Mark 1:14)

From that time Jesus began to proclaim, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 4:17)

good news is a pair of twins: 1) announcement (something has happened!) + 2) call (respond this or that way!)

it's striking that the announcement is always logically prior to the call (even in matthew, the call to repent is because the kingdom of god has come near.

we act because something has already happened, something that god has done, something we were not involved in and are only hearing about it now, afterwards. and this announcement is irrevocable (it has happened, it cannot unhappen!)

the kingdom of god has come near! christ is risen! christ is lord!

"all advice is context-dependent."

should we answer fools according to their folly?

in short: for every piece of advice, there is an equal and opposite and contradictory piece of advice.

pete enns: this is good, because we must develop wisdom and discernment.

my own thoughts: but wisdom and maturity on our own terms is the test of the serpent. what will the source of our wisdom be? our own knowledge, or trustful listening to god?

inspired by jeff chu's "blessed are the needy"

a theology in which everybody's needs and lives matter must be buttressed by:

• a theology of abundance: can everybody matter? is there even enough for all of us?
• a theology of identity/neighbourliness: does everyone matter equally? am i my brother's keeper?
• a theology of justice and mercy: why aren't certain needs met? why are certain people's needs met less than others' needs?
• a theology of listening: how can we even know what everybody's needs are? or how to meet them?
• a theology of enemies: if we aren't rivals or competitors (and all our needs matter), then who or what is behind this violence?

start somewhere

not everything can be done from a bird's eye view

start somewhere and pick up the rest, like sticks along a trail

don't be scared of wasting your time going down dead ends

at worst, you will have lived

i want to add to something i posted on 10/24, under the title "light."

when c.s. lewis writes that evil is a parasite on the good, it strikes me that the enemy can offer nothing than what we already have or will have in the promise of God.

the only original contribution that the enemy can offer is to gain it on our timing and on our terms (i.e., without needing to trust the lord to provide).

• humans in the garden: the serpent offered their eyes becoming opened, becoming wise, becoming like elohim. of course, the humans were already like elohim, and surely god would have provided them the wisdom necessary (as he provided solomon).
• jesus in the desert: satan tempted him to prove that he was the son of god, to turn stones into bread, to be protected by angels, and to receive the kingdoms of this world. these, of course, are all things that jesus either already had, or would be able to do by the power of the spirit.
• cain killing abel: sin offered cain an opportunity to seize god's favour from his brother. but god's favour was something god had promised to cain if he did good!
• temptation of joseph: offer of sexual pleasure from a powerful woman, which joseph would later receive by god's hand in the form of asenath, a high-born aristocratic woman.
• temptation of david: what could david have received from killing uriah that he could not have received if he had trusted in the lord? even if he wanted bathsheba specifically, could he not have waited for uriah to die? yes, this is sketchy, but it would have been lawful and entirely possible.

evil is always a counterfeit good. evil offers nothing original on its own. satan is not very creative

but there's something about the enemy only being able to tempt us with distorted visions of 1) something we already have or 2) something god will provide in our future.

if evil cannot come up with anything original, we lose nothing from turning it down because it's always just a cheap imitation of the good that actually exists.

and, to add to that, satan accidentally gives away the game; in his temptations, he inadvertently also reveals what god is planning for us and has in store for us.

he tempts the humans with god-likeness, something they already have. he tempts jesus with the identity of son of god, which jesus already has! when satan tempts us about something we could become, slow down and wonder: is satan just trying to re-sell me something that i already have? probably, because he isn't creative!

thus, what if we saw every temptation as 1) a cheap imitation and 2) a distorted preview of god's good will for us? consider the way that satan's temptation of jesus revealed that jesus would one day rule over all kingdoms! even the most attractive temptations that seem like something god wouldn't provide (power, sex, wealth) can only be counterfeit of true power, true pleaseure, true agency.

from this view, we don't even have to exercise willpowere to reject or turn down's satan's offer, to find strength to walk away from something we really want. no, we can easily walk away because we know that it's just not the best deal on offer, that it's only a cheap snake oil imitation of what god wants to give us. and of course, receiving it from god means we'll have to wait, trust, and submit (even unto death, in jesus' case). we may not get it on our terms, or get everything that we wanted. but with god, we get god.

have felt palpably lonely twice within the past month

and the texture of this feeling is noticeably different than loneliness i've felt before, so it's a little interesting (we love intellectualization!)

i got so lonely that i called my mom at work haha

borrowing from scott erickson, i get to feel lonely.

i think it's cruel to say we get to feel grief, or that we get to feel suicidal.

but with something like loneliness, it is nice that i get to feel lonely. what a privilege.

it's all in here

notes on tj klune's the house in the cerulean sea:

• one experience of belonging and secure attachment is all it takes for someone like linus barker to become "high agency" - "those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind" - it becomes easier to stand up and be deviant and circumvent the avoidance of "social punishments" when you find the someones that truly matter and the somewheres you truly belong. "and the things of earth will grow strangely dim."
• i shouldn't expect much from this book, but i am beginning to appreciate rf kuang's babel the more i read these fantasy books which touch on social issues. the characterization of the anti-magical creatures contingent as foolish bigots does not go to far, but i would appreciate greater consideration of the political economy of bigotry. something beyond the dichotomy of open-mindedness and closed-mindedness, as important as this is.
• i wonder if i would have liked the very secret society of irregular witches more if i had read a physical copy.

today i was upset about something, and it brought me back to me being upset about something similar four years ago or so.

i was upset that some people will show preferential treatment to some people (won't want to talk to Person A but will want to talk to person B)

today i feel like i realized that my upsetness was like "tunnel visioning" into a part of something that is true (like, reverberating and picking up part of something true)

it's helpful because on one hand it's like "i'm not crazy, there is something going on, but also gaining a bigger / wider perspective on the problem reveals that the situation is so much beyond my control that the solution presents itself: relax and worry less about it.

to stop beating around the bush, the truth that i'm describing is that the social world is rigged against some people on account of their gender, skin colour, height, normal way of speaking, or attractiveness.

like yeah, maybe if me or Person A were a different person, that other person would want to talk to us. and yeah, it is unfair! that's the whole point of pretty privilege, sexism, etc.

i'm realizing that it's like i'm waging a personal war against basic parts of reality

me being angry that straight men are mostly interested in talking to girls, and more specifically, girls they find attractive.

yeah it's unfair but maybe i should just accept that about straight men.

like, why am i waging a war against reality?

i still think that the Lord stands against injustice of all forms, and is calling his people to repentance

but the continual return of the mind to fixate on and judge about and be frustrated by the problem perceived, is this the spirit of love?

people say that "the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

i want to tell a little story about this.

for two years now (since 2021), i've wanted to start going to the library (support your local library! and all that).

but for two years, i always overcomplicated it. it felt right in my mind that to go to the library, i would need to ride the bus to get there (like, anti-capitalist vibes). but i don't have a u-pass, so i'd need to spend money via presto card. so it never felt like going to the library was worth it yet.

two fridays ago, i wanted to print some infosheets, but i don't have a printer at home. by happenstance, it was also material that i wouldn't want my dad to print. so to the library i went.

as i arrived, i realized that going to the library was actually No Big Deal. like, i dont know why i felt so averse to driving to the library when i've been driving everywhere else. i guess combo of 1) the idea that it would be wrong to go the library other than public transit, 2) i didn't want to drive to the library on a whim (this time, it was for the benefit of the community, so i thought)

after i printed my infosheets, i decided to borrow two books. why not right?

i read one of the books and enjoyed it. a couple of weeks later, it was time to return the books. so guess what happened?

obviously, i returned to the library! and while i was there, i borrowed more books! now i have "started going to the library again" like i wanted, after two years!

idk why it was such a big deal in my mind to "figure out how to start going to the library," when all it really took was go one (1) time and that one time would then require me to go back again, and again, and so on! self-reinforcing loops!

i keep overcomplicating things i want to start (e.g., how to do art, how to start putting yourself out there, how to start baking again)

i think the key is that "the first single step can push you into a loop of taking the next step, and so on, and so on."

before i take the first step, my mind worries about whether i have the willpower to keep taking all those steps and follow through, and i worry about quitting partway through.

going to the library is a helpful analogy here: you don't need willpower to keep coming back because the due date is its own motivation. just go once (don't worry about all the other steps yet!)

p.s. i think it's related to how the problem with adhd + depression is that the normal cycle of dopamine release when you achieve goals Does Not Work. so it's not as easy for the first step to set off a self-reinforcing cycle of motivation to take the next step. you have to keep taking steps yourself (and executive dysfunction goes brrrr).

so, for people with adhd + depression, it becomes even more critical to make use of self-reinforcing cycles that gently compel you to take the next step.

i like the phrase "coming to yourself"

because it implies "being away from yourself"

which is how i realize i've been feeling

but i suppose the realizing of which means i've already begun the journey back

hopefully.

jacob geller corroborates what kierkegaard and sartre knew:

agential existence (where agency is limited) is the most terrifying thing

there are only two salves: 1) irresponsibility (the dionysian answer) and 2) abdication of responsibility (the theist's answer, the fascist's answer)

disclaimer: i don't really like the following blogpost, but i'm leaving it for posterity's sake.

/u/rafflesiaarnoldii's explanation of the type 3 as "doing to become" has been very helpful

especially in relation to visakan's (who i suspect to be dominant in type 3) concept of "do 100 things" and "deconstructing your unfulfilled dreams"

as visa writes: "maybe you think you want to get rich, but it turns out that... what you want is the $$ [to] buy/eat really good food. maybe you can become a home chef, or a food critic."

i know that at least for myself, it's easy to misunderstand the difference between what we want to be and what we want to do. someone might say: "i want to become an vtuber," which is in itself a perfectly respectable goal. however, can one say that one wants to become a vtuber when one does not do any of the things a vtuber does? can one want to become a writer if one does not write?

the conventional wisdom is that such a person is "not serious." externally, we judge people who talk big about wanting to be creatives but don't do the work. internally, we feel ashamed that we dream far bigger than we can show for ourselves. i think it's more helpful to ask ourselves "what do i actually want from becoming this?"

the truth, as i take from visakan, is that we need to deconstruct our dreams of being a writer or an idol or having more friends and break it down into "the things we would've wanted to get out of it," and then consider these component bits closely. are they things that we want to do or are they things we want to be?

if they are things that we want to do, then we can try to do those things in a different context (basically, get the thing from a different source). do you want to be rich or do you want to eat good food?

but! if you don't actually want to do anything involved with becoming a vtuber or writer or having more friends, then the thing you want to get out of being such must be to be or feel something that you feel that you're currently not. perhaps you want to be a writer because you want to feel creative, because you want to feel not inferior to others. perhaps you want to have more friends not because you want to hang out with more people but because you want to be known well in good regard.

to me, this is no more shameful. maybe you don't want to write. but then the solution is not to keep beating yourself up because you're not a writer yet.

father, i don't know how to love anymore. i know only how to be kind. i need it from you.

and i don't know how to delight and wonder anymore. heal my numb shame and open my eyes again.

and i don't know how to want anymore. help me to begin again by wanting you.

and i don't know how to be myself anymore. i need you to raise me from the earth.

all behaviour is contextual

affect the context, affect the behaviour

your self, too, is a context

politics, performance, and prophecy

bullet points:

• a critique of "everything is political." "Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals." everything has political implications, but not everything needs to be about using power to affect the organization of life together.
• for example, "virtue signaling" is sometimes condemned as ineffective politics. what does it do in the world? sometimes it's condemned as mere "performance."
• but performance is not nothing. some performances, by being performed, enact what it is that they perform. e.g., performing one's role at a wedding and saying "i do" is a performance which turns the utterer into a married person.
• dichotomy between activism and contemplation, between materialism and idealism, between organizing and protest/witness/prophecy
• reading up on mariame kaba and tpot have made me very interested in the former side of the dichotomy (how do we actually do things to get the change we want? are the things we're doing actually doing something in the world to get us closer to what we want?)
• and it's significant i think to understand the political dimensions of jesus' ministry (how jesus used power to affect the organization of life together)
• however, i think that jesus' life is better described as "performance" rather than "politics." if i've learned anything from mariame kaba, it's that "meaningful" politics is by definition not done alone. yes, an individual can sabotage infrastructure or immolate themselves, but none of these will have a long-term, meaningful impact on the structure of the distribution of power unless they inspire others to organize together.
• at the end of jesus' life, we see the numbers surrounding him decrease until he is left alone. he dies alone surrounded by a small group of women and one disciple. this is not a political act (in the sense of utilitarian action which effect material change in the world). this is the death of a slave. this is a failed messiah. this is the scandal of the cross.
• but it makes me think of prophetic sign-acts. to me, these demonstrate that god does not primarily think in terms of "politics" but rather "performance." god is not utilitarian, in other words.

"And the Lord God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife and clothed them." (genesis 3:21)

"Above all, maintain constant love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins." (1 peter 4:8)

the image of being at your local market.

it's judea in the first century.

and there is jesus, under the afternoon sun.

he's in his early thirties. the construction worker's son.

he is shopping for legumes and dates.

he looks just like everybody else here.

a running list of how the world is big and people are different from me

• when people smoke
• gambling / taking big risks
• hazing for new recruits
• weird body temperature regulation (warmer than average, colder than average)
• having multiple voices in one's head (imaginary friends / headmates / good angel + bad angel)
• believes that "being polos (plain / pure / simple / sincere / straightforward) is not too good"
• owning and loving pets
• daydreamers (daydreamers who imagine that they were the musician who wrote the music and receiving acclaim)
• able to make out with strangers
• people who vlog
• people who get into physical fights

some things i've found today:

• fox curio's floating bookshop
• roadwarden
• for small creatures such as we

every time that somebody's writing, or somebody's music, or somebody's food makes a difference to me, it scares me a little.

you realize that everything in orbit could be knocked out into new trajectories. that society is just an ecosystem of nested, interlocking orbits. if you can make a small difference, you can make a big difference.

my coping mechanism is to live in such a way that making a difference is impossible. people don't really change, etc.

but when i come upon a way of wording things that is particularly persuasive, particularly helpful, you realize that even articulating things clearly can make a difference for someone.

that's really scary.

by being alive, im making a difference. am i making a good one?

you know how we use "anemic" to describe something that is weak, lacking in vitality, etc.?

what would it be like if we used more health conditions as figures of speech?

(barring the obvious: "im so adhd! im so ocd")

i mean when a disease becomes descriptive of something other than a person (e.g. an analysis can be anemic) list of conditions

aneurysmic: something that is fit to burst

allergic: this one is real!

lord, may i drink of your goodness fully.

may every family of grass be to me a cup of your kindness.

may every dark of night be to me a cup of your grace.

in the spirit that something worth finishing is something worth starting:

• visakan's ayy lmao: to me, the image i prefer is of inhaling and exhaling. not the middle path between two "bad" extremes, but the capacity to move back and forth between two goods. notice: are we getting stuck? are we spiraling into inhaling without the release of exhale? e.g., getting stuck in self-care thinking without ability to move to another perspective, or getting stuck in "letting go" without ability to move into season of "holding on." (wisdom in practice is discernment - proverbs 26:4-5)
• machiavelli's dam: one would never build a dam as a flood (fortune) is occuring; one builds the dam before or after. when the flood of fortune strikes, do not try to build the dam then. one cannot. good thinking is impossible. let the flood wash over what it will (surrender to the lord). build in between floods, and pray the dam holds.
• two unhelpful ways of thinking: 1. "is it really so hard to xyz?" 2. "i told you so." - without moralizing, it is not that these statements are bad statements that good people ought to avoid. but they signal that we are not serious about addressing an issue. the person who is serious about addressing an issue is preoccupied with how to get more people on-board, rather than proving a point. the alternatives to both ways of thinking are: 1. "how can we help this person to xyz, given their inability to do it as easily as i do?" 2. "i'm glad you see the problem now and that we can join forces."

when jacob wrestled with the stranger for a blessing

he came out of it with a limp.

"blessed are you who limp."

was sick last week, and yes, it was almost pleasant!

as always, the true virus was the capitalist ethic (in my case, the MRP)

anyway, i'm going to try to ladle out servings of brain soup that are more personal, more journal-y, more feelings-y (not just arguments i have with myself).

i guess feelings are kind of arguments you have with yourself, if you think about it.

i was talking to vava about this, but im grateful that my problems are "regressing" to what they were pre-pandemic.

the similarities are also highlighting the differences.

the emotions are just as intense (i feel! threateningly intense!). however, i think they are going in different directions.

perceived rejection still feels full-body bad. that much is still true.

however, i think im now (starting to) sail through these feelings aware of the space i have to navigate (rather than just battening down the hatches, swallowing down the bad feelings and trying to overcome/accept them).

cognitive biases in my thinking:

• judging (and biased towards criticism): i tend to be interested in how things go wrong, how things are wrong, how things need healing. my default assumption is things are broken, and the secondary assumptions is it is my responsibility to fix it. even now, i might be framing this as a problem, as something that might be bad, as something wrong with me.

  q: is it possible to live as if there is nothing to fix? is it possible to notice how things are going well? update (11/13): i keep rediscovering this: relax into the present moment. just be here now. be "careless."

• pride (needing others to be needy): i tend to want people to be needy, to have big feelings, to have problems and wounds, because then i know where i can fit into their lives (as a friend, a companion, a confidant). however, if i want people to be needy, will i truly be able to help support their healing (because then they will no longer need me)?

  q: is it possible to befriend people without looking for an angle of entry through their needs? is it possible to befriend people who are secure and don't need help?

a second iteration of my previous post "alignment," posted on 5/16.

i've been thinking about dave's fondness for jordan peterson, who is himself fond of the dichotomy between "order" and "chaos."

bibleproject's "chaos dragon" podcast series also pits order against chaos, with god on the side of order.

and yet, as wolfwalkers (2020) shows, the antagonists who stand against life and the good often stand on the side of order, of law, of civilization.

as such, as a reaction to this, those who resist domination often claim the side of "chaos," of antinomianism, of anti-civilization.

but must we leave these things (i.e. order) to jordan peterson and his ilk? how can we speak to people like dave who identify with the fight for order against chaos?

(especially given that this fight is a biblical theme, as bibleproject shows!)

blessed are the low-agency individuals, for they will inherit the earth.

high agency, master morality, sigma grindset, these are all different names for the same independent, "against the crowd," go-getter, greatness and power, "winner" sensibility.

i cannot lie, it is tempting. who among us have not aspired to be the kind of person who can take what they want, who can "bend reality to their will," and is master of their own fate, and is above the influence of the weak-minded masses?

however, my lord did not take the form of a high agency individual, or a master, or a sigma male. he took the form of a slave. he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross. (philippians 2:7-8). he did not rise above the masses, he served them until he was trampled beneath their feet.

whenever we see people mock those with low-agency, those who identify as victims, and weak-willed losers, remember that the scandal of the cross is that the messiah was crucified (stripped of his agency), was a victim of the roman state, and was to all bystanders a weak-willed loser who did not stand up for himself.

it is not that high agency is bad (it is indeed transformative). but blessed are the low-agency people, who can trust only in the high agency of their god.

im consistently blessed by mockingbird magazine (which continues to make me anxious, as i cannot remember how i found them in the first place! it feels like delicious manna which i woke up finding in my lap. where did this come from? is there more coming? how can i find the source?)

anyway, anthony robinson recommended dr. pooja lakshmin's "real self-care", which led me to come back to my interest in the topic of "self-help for leftists."

self-help, as many leftists have pointed out, is suspiciously adjacent to neoliberal individualism. at the same time, i don't think that we ought to concede this ground to reactionaries! and besides, the self-help genre is helpful in that it contains concrete proposals (which can sometimes be lacking in leftist calls for "community-care;" what can the overwhelmed and depressed person do to contribute to such projects?)

to me, the best of self-help is poetic, in the sense of poiesis. i don't like how smarmy and "mister-fix-it" self-help gurus can tend to be. it is narrowing (which can sometimes be good), rather than expansive. self-help can instead implode our categories of productivity and shoulds and telos, revealing the wider world we have let ourselves forget.

long preamble aside, here is an incomplete and running list of such books i have read:

• oliver burkeman's four thousand weeks - burkeman is "conservative" (reader beware!), and it sometimes shows. still, i think its popularity is earned. probably the most helpful text in helping me to internalize that the game is rigged and that self-optimization is a sham. discusses a better way to deal with anxiety about using time well.
• devon price's laziness does not exist - another foundational text (for me!). in its examination of laziness, this text is really about motivation (and why some people are sometimes unmotivated). discusses a better way to deal with demotivation. corresponds to mainstream thinking about how to motivate oneself.

and some books that would fit, but which i haven't yet read:

• pooja lakshmin's real self-care - corresponds to mainstream thinking about self-care
• jenny odell's saving time
• tricia hersey's rest is resistance

update: i've been inspired by visakan's precepts of: "make friends," "do 100 things," and other tpot user's experiments with building relationships and building communities.

to clarify what i want, i want to 1) put myself out there (instead of envying people who do, while simply "waiting for it" myself), 2) have the courage to start things instead of always tagging along, and 3) taking steps to become a person who isn't ashamed to express themselves.

all of this, is very different from who i've perceived myself to be for around the past five years now. in fact, it's a little dangerous (parts of it seem to contradict what i've previously thought and written regarding the wisdom of waiting and receiving.) i remind myself: all my energy is a gift from the lord, freely given, stubbornly accepted. every opportunity is a gift from the lord, not of my own making. every stumble and every failure is a gift to the lord, who makes gardens out of the wild and waste.

i am grateful, in all this, for joshua mackin's writing, which reminds me to be conscious so as not to fall into the trance of positivity and proactivity. the trance of positive thinking and positive action, which may be so enamoured with itself and its plans that it cannot abide the sadness in the world.

the temptation and excitement of the "positive" is drawing nearer to me, but i want to choose to let draw nearer still the crucified lord, the man of sorrows.

his is a joy which emerges from shadows.

(genesis 50:20) even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.

god is playing a long game of improv, saying "yes and" to all of our poor choices, turning them around for good.

more on improv

'sticky' fucked-upness: the concept that things are fucked up and stay fucked up, despite our knowing that things are fucked up. we want things to change but they can't.

two theories of "'sticky' fucked-upness":

1. attachment and trauma; helps explain sticky fucked-upness on individual and interpersonal level

2. marxist, historical materialist political economy; helps explain sticky fucked-upness on societal level

how can these two theories of everything be interrelated? they each explain the "constraints to needs and constraints to abilities" problem, but at different scales.

personally, only one text has seemed to bridge both scales for me: matthew croasmun's "the emergence of sin: the cosmic tyrant in romans"

god will not be used

1 - 2

let it threaten your self image

but may it not threaten your self worth

related to my previous post, "three."

i want to think and write and live in mess-ier, startling ways.

it's not accident, i think, that jesus teaches in imagistic parables (stories) and not only in abstract principles.

the image can hold us in ways that propositions and principles cannot.

with that said, i offer: alongside (rather than instead of) the propositions: god loves you / come back to god and he will forgive you / where sin abounds, grace abounds more,

"for god, you are worth throwing a party over. you are! don't you know that, for the father, every littlest step you take back home is another reason for a massive celebration? the bigger the fuck up, the bigger the party when you decide to let him carry you home. he doesn't think you stupid, he's too busy celebrating your return!"

hi isabel! ❤️

anyway, love is:

• patient and kind action (4a)
• which seeks not to prove anything (4b-5)
• but rather perseveres in seeking the beloved and their flourishing (6-13)

update (11/21): i also like this definition, offered by josef pieper: "to love something or someone is to say 'I am glad you exist'"

bauerschmidt adds that love is "a desire to delight in the sheer existence of the beloved and wants that existence to flourish," to "wish it well."

there is something immediately compelling about c.s. lewis' depiction of hell as a large and lonely gray city, where people keep moving farther and farther away from one another due to their inability to put up with one another.

it is, at its heart, a warning of the danger of selfish individualism. we draw wider and wider boundaries against others, drawing further and further into ourselves.

it's hard to shake the power of this image - at the same time, i think the lonely gray city is only one side of hell.

without understanding hell's other half, we may risk decrying the dangers, narcissism, and selfishness of atomism and boundaries and run straight into the dangers, narcissism and selfishness of codependency.

surely, in hell, there are houses kilometres apart from one another, where lonely souls keep moving away at each inconvenience.

however, there too surely are houses where tens of unhappy souls live together, each keeping the others around because they are proudly certain of the others' inferiority and dependence on them.

hell is lonely, and it is other people. hell is obsession with other people when alone, and hell is feeling utterly alone while with other people.

cheap grace: "Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." - bonhoeffer

in other words, it is grace without the cost of discipleship; one may behave as before. one does not need to repent or to change.

however, does avoiding cheap grace mean emphasizing the cost of discipleship, the effort of sanctification? i argue: no, we can instead emphasize the radical grace of god.

this issue is particularly important to me. it's easy enough for progressives to preach grace against the puritanical, legalistic, and demanding conservatives, but at the same time, it isn't very fun for that grace to then be turned around as a defense to absolve abusers or as an assault against calls for accountability and reparations. "where's the grace? where's the forgiveness?"

what, therefore, is the relationship between grace and repentance / accountability / reparations / sanctification?

mockingbird magazine's (mbird) insight, distilled:

technique is secondary to being. for mbird, low anthropology means that being is hopelessly curved in on itself.

i can agree that our being is hidden with christ in god. technique is fine (it's not evil; it's just technique, to paraphrase nais' paraphrase of glissant), but technique cannot breach the reality that our being is hidden with christ in god.

homiletic technique is fine, but the word of our testimony is christ formed in us (galatians 4:19). in your being, rest in him and trust in god. he speaks. he acts.

in the garden, the test was:

1. god's way - acceptance of limitation ("not every tree is yours"), receive abundance (the tree of life is a gift, freely shared)

2. the serpent's way - fear of scarcity ("did god say you may not eat any tree in the garden?"), seize limitlessness ("you will become like elohim")

the key task: the wisdom to differentiate limitation from scarcity, and to differentiate the promise of abundance from the promise of limitlessness

funny, i just remembered i've already blogged about this in last year's post (7/30, lugubrious): the difference between the precious gift and the hoard, between the beautiful ephemeral and the scarce, is gratitude. past me, thank you.

inspired by a post on visa's blog

care is paying attention to four things:

• needs
• abilities
• constraints to meeting needs (often constrained ability)
• constraints to exercising abilities (often constrained needs)

in expanding circles (from oneself, to others, to the land, to all creation)

inspired by a post on visa's blog

different ways of thinking about the same thing:

1. wittgenstein's ladder - "My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)."

we can encourage people to use a wittgenstein's ladder because it remains helpful (and even necessary), even though its nature is provisional and not final. one cannot simply jump to the end, one must go through the process of climbing up and then throwing away.

2. the bell curve meme - example

the bell curve meme is based on iq distribution, but let's instead take it as an actual "hill" that one must get over to get to the zone of "mastery" (rather than the dubious concept of high iq). the meme is a kind of horseshoe theory, suggesting that "beginners" and "masters" are more alike than mid-level journeyers are to either - another example - however, when taken as a journey over a hill, the implication is that all three stages are necessary. while the master's reasoning resembles the beginner in a way to make the midwit look foolish, it is actually necessary to be the midwit before one can become a master.

for comparison, i am disagreeing with this take on it, which implies that the middle can be and is to be avoided entirely (skewing closer to the notion of the bell curve as a distribution of positions that one can fall along). i don't think that thomas' take is entirely unhelpful, but for now i think the bell curve is more akin to a linear (spiral?) journey from home, away from home, and back home again.

the dreaded middle is wittgenstein's lader, so to speak. one must enter it in order that one may learn why (and how) one must move on from it.

as sleeping at last sings it: "maybe it's all necessary / the holding on, the letting go." once we learn to let go, we may blush in embarassment that we held on for so long. but perhaps holding on is wittgenstein's ladder or the hill in the bell curve. we hold on to learn to let go.

maybe we do ourselves and others a disservice to want to skip the struggle of the middle to skip straight to the end. it's okay to grow past something that was once useful (it was likely indeed useful for you as you moved from beginner to mid-stage), and it's okay for things not to be final and once-and-for-all (indeed, wittgenstein's ladder is useful precisely because it knows that isn't final).

mbti isn't final and that's okay. the enneagram isn't final and that's okay. the enneagram's purpose is to make the enneagram useless! we don't need to skip entirely past them just because they're limited and ultimately limiting (everything is!).

wisdom i have received:

• there are no bad parts (IFS). when parts act out, meet yourself with non-judgmental compassionate self-talk. ("thank you for trying to help, i know that we're trying. however, this isn't working for us. what about we try something better?").
• people better than me are not a threat to me. this town is big enough for the both of us.
• love is measured by willingness to be interrupted.
• there will always be some baseline level of disappointment and "suck." sometimes there is nothing to be done. there is no cure for being human. (update: i now call this the "wildermess," that part of reality which is unruly and cannot be domesticated away.)
• it's not up to you to do this. you can't. (oliver burkeman's 4000 weeks)
• everything that lives, grows inside something else - everything worthwhile is done with other people. as vi says it: individualism is the master's house.
• (sonder-esque) everyone is trying their best from the perspective they have
• "great communities aren't built by people who want more connection in their lives. great communities are built by people who feel deeply connected with themselves & are excited about sharing that with others" (source)
• desire is primary. (related reading: low anthropology, by david zahl)
• what do you have that you didn't receive? (1 corinthians 4:7)

pay curious and expansive attention:

• to the presentness of the present.
• to needs (yourself, others), and to what is preventing them from being met.
• to internal contradictions.
• to how you pay attention.

thoughts on the nature of the fall of humankind

been trying to make sense of the themes of judgment and annihilation in the bible in light of universal reconciliation.

e.g. the judgment against humans in the days of noah and the judgment on israel, leading to exile.

in some sense, we should not fear the judgment of god, because 1) god chastises those whom he loves, 2) his judgment is a form of mercy, 3) mercy triumphs over judgment (his anger lasts a moment, but his favour a lifetime).

however, what does it mean for mercy to triumph over judgment if those who are punished experience judgment as destruction and annihilation, without hope for mercy? if we surrender ourselves to god's judgment, might we not be destroyed?

yes, there is a promise of a remnant, but there is no guarantee that we will be part of that remnant. how is that remnant salvific or a message of hope to us, who are perishing?

possible answer: the remnant is christ. when we are destroyed, the faithful remnant that survives of us is christ who is formed in us. we pass away, but christ lives. therefore, we shall not fear facing god's judgment, for in dying, we find his life. we find his mercy, that is, christ.

stuff im loving:

• bottoms (2023)
• cars (2006)
• fionna and cake (2023)
• my adventures with superman (2023)

sometimes i feel a lot of anxiety about not being creative enough. i know that there are books about the subject, but here i want to leave some reminders for myself about the matter that i've stumbled upon through reading about creative work.

"The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."

yet, when god decided to give the adam an ezer, it was not in recognition of adam's vocation to work the garden.

no, it was simply because "It is not good for the man to be alone."

the woman is a gift for the adam, freely given, because it was not good for adam to be alone.

currently obsessed with epic the musical

in it, there's a kernel that could change me

it's helping me think about iteration as part of the creative process

jorge rivera-herrans is so public with his process, showing how songs have changed from their earliest draft, and even how the entire musical has changed from the first tiktoks rivera-herrans posted for it.

a lot of early epic seemed not so original (cribbed from lin-manuel miranda), and now it has its own voice.

emergent strategy is non-linear and iterative, adrienne maree brown says. don't worry, you can always come back to it later.

three non-foundational principles, which i find myself returning to again and again, expressed differently across different domains of life:

• it's complicated.
• it is better to face our fears. don't be afraid.
• cruciform love is a more excellent way.

more additions (10/10):

• any complaint which begins with (or implies) the phrase "is it really so hard to ... xyz?" is unhelpful. yes, for some people, it is so hard. - helpful example
• people have different needs and different abilities. from each according to ability, to each according to need.

two stray and related lines of thought:

1. inspired by the following three tumblr posts: 1 - 2 - 3

1.a. in short: these three posts suggest a more explicitly dynamic approach to the enneagram, in which one's core type is characterised in part by avoidant contempt of one's stress point and ambivalent, envious, aspirational admiration of one's security point.

the 6 is that which is triggered by the 3 and aspires for the 9. the 2 is triggered by the 8 and aspires for the 4.

being aware of this helps us to understand why "growth" and "health" in the enneagram are not simply straightforward matters of coming to resemble one's security point.

@subconsciousmysteries writes that integration represents what we aspire to embody but feel scared/unable to embody. it is possible to overidentify with our security point with the effect of "false growth" or "false health," causing us to feel good without true lasting transformation.

meanwhile, our stress point represents our natural stress response; it represents our toxic coping mechanism, "the thing you just really hate in yourself and in other people." our stress point is what we subconsciously move towards when our normal ego building mechanisms are worn out (in a great balancing act, almost). in a jungian way, our stress point helps to point the way towards what we have been avoiding by daylight, the thing that we believe we don't need or may not have but in fact cannot do without. it is the darkness or weakness that we fear will consume us and which we consequently avoid and disavow. however, to "integrate," we must do the jungian shadow work of uncovering and becoming aware of those undesirable parts that we hide, of facing our fear rather than denying it, so to speak.

1.b. it seems to me (only speculatively), that unhealthy "false" growth in the enneagram means to consciously overidentify with our security point but in fact unconsciously moving towards our stress point (e.g., a 1 trying to be more like a 7, but then becoming lost in misery at 4 when they feel they have fallen short).

meanwhile, healthy growth in the enneagram means consciously (in the safety of unconditional grace and love) stumbling towards our stress point and then consciously falling upwards towards our security point (e.g., a 1 embracing their 4ishness will become more in touch with the full depth of their authentic feelings, hopefully allowing them to loosen their own rigid self-control and instead pay an open attention to all that is already good in the world, at 7). here is a full list of how each type can move to their stress and security points in healthy and unhealthy manners.

in short, we have to stop grasping for what we think is "good" in us and to be able to patiently sit with what we think is "bad" in us.

The way of life is God-centred, Christlike and cruciform, Spirit-led and diverse (Pentecostal), communal, peaceable, and resistant to the powers (Anabaptist), actively just and liberative for the poor (liberation), pastoral, contemplative, and healing for heavy-laden souls (contemplative and soul care), mystical and participatory (Orthodox), earthy and humble (sacramental), and bestows life upon those in the tombs (universalism)

sources: lisa sharon harper's the very good gospel; ellen f. davis' scripture, culture, and agriculture; emily swan's and ken wilson's solus jesus; eugene mccarraher's the enchantments of mammon; bibleproject

• 1. god and mammon
• 2. love and fear/anxiety
• 3. common abundance and scarcity (note: not limitation)
• 4. receiving and seizing (accumulation) for oneself
• 5. sharing and keeping
• 6. life-giving and death-dealing
• 7. humility and domination
• 8. cross (empowerment) and sword (coercion)

these are interconnected.

mammon logic = fear of scarcity 🡢 seizing / private accumulation 🡢 death-dealing 🡢 scarcity 🡢 fear of scarcity 🡢 etc.

the reign of god = unanxious, non-competitive loving of god/others/self, open-handedly receiving a common abundance, life-giving (matthew 5-6)

puzzling out a few things:

love and fear/anxiety; abundance and scarcity; life-giving and death-dealing

to love is to "be for" and to "be with" (scot mcknight), to extend oneself in order to nurture spiritual growth (bell hooks)

"all the believers were together and had everything in common. they sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need." (acts 2:42)

the spirit, the spirit of god's resurrection love, is evidenced in a liberated, liberative community of common abundance wherein the needs of all are met

to love is to participate in the collective activity of meeting of the needs of all, whether our own or those of others

the spirit of love is opposed to the spirit of fear, one operates out of trust in god's expansive abundance and the other operates out of scarcity

"whoever fears is not perfected in love" (1 john 4:18)

the one who insists that fear and scarcity are necessary conditions of life has not been perfected in love

abolition and abundance

context: 1 - 2 - 3

i had been convinced by universalist arguments that the preservation of free will is not god's highest aim, but rather love. for one, god seems to override people's free will in certain cases (e.g. revealing godself to paul while on the road to damascus, which seems to drive paul's theology that it is grace alone that is strong enough to liberate people from their bondage to sin). secondly, the reality is that free will does not seem absolute in the world we live in; our free will can be meaningfully constrained by factors ranging from ignorance of other options to the exercise of coercive force on the part of others.

indeed, it made sense that the loving thing to do would be not to let a child walk into a street of their owen volition, but to push them out of the way against their knowledge or will. indeed, is this not what christ did for us? however, many parts of the biblical text seemed to counter an easy escape to this kind of theology. for one, the deuteronomistic insistence that humans are to choose life (implying we are responsible for our choices). secondly, god's accommodation of human choices, even when these choices are against humans' best interest. paradigmatically, god did not intend for israel to have a king, but nevertheless accommodated their demands — albeit with regulations and restrictions. but why? if kings are bad for israel, why does god let them have one? why doesn't god say no?

tl;dr: why doesn't god forcibly prevent people from making choices that will harm themselves or others, but rather sometimes even accommodates our choices — working within the world we have chosen for ourselves?

additional reading:

• james coffin

why doesn't god stop evil/suffering/tragedy?

thomas jay oord's answer: god can't.

a possible other response: god will.

christianity: a lovingly practiced infidelity to the current order of things.

ros and i hid something for curious explorers to find in a cafe somewhere on bloor

now im hooked,, gonna do this more often >:D

"The question however is the same. Will the masses (employers, workers, scallops) follow their representatives?" (Source: Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay," 1984, p. 214)

There is something here about Christian theology through the figures of the mass and the representative. Christ is the New Human, the representative firstborn of a redeemed human nature. Will the masses follow their representative?

i am beginning to think that to know we are accepted, as peter gomes writes, really is the beginning.

that is, that we indeed have been accepted, that we indeed are loved.

part of me always feared the possible abuses. should racists believe that they are accepted? if god accepts us, why should the sinner repent?

how can god accept us when we have done so much wickedness, so much harm? how can god accept that? why should we love ourselves?

but the thing about the reactionary, the racist, the wealthy, the misogynist, is in fact that they do not love themselves enough.

they do not know that their worth is a gift. they see their worth in the race they were born with, the possession they must protect, the system they must uphold, and so on.

if we knew god accepts us, we would not need our racist rhetoric, our treasure hoards, our games that we play to confirm to ourselves that we are worthy.

you are accepted. you are loved. let striving cease.

a christian theological justification of the anthropological concept of difference, of the culturally-conditioned:

god incarnated in a specific creature, a specific human body: a jewish body, a male body, a jewish, male body and all that would mean in the first-century roman empire, a human who spoke only a particular language, who was raised with a specific religious tradition, who preached in the specific ideas, vocabulary, and grammar of that tradition and to a specifically first-century working-class judean audience. nothing about jesus was generic, "objective," neutral, universal, or transcended history.

and yet, it is through god's incarnation into the utterly specific that all creatures, all creation (in all our diverse contexts) was saved.

as such, perhaps it is okay that anthropology largely does away with the universal, leaving us only with irresoluble differences. we do not need to be everything to rescue everything. we do not need to be everywhere to save everywhere. we do not need to fully escape the limits of ourselves in order to love well.

i'm currently enamoured with d.w. winnicott's definition of creativity, which is our connection to/memory of our original omnipotence as infants.

for winnicott, when we were infants, we experienced ourselves to be able to create the world of ourselves (when we wanted something, it would appear in our hands).

i become most like another person when papa annoys me.

half of me wants to call him wrong, wronger than anyone has ever been.

the other half just wants to never say anything again, because what's the point?

none of the usual curiosity i feel is there. instead, a warning sign, a levee, a heavy tongue sending smoke signals from the fire.

but i suppose what most annoys us about others is what we most reject in ourselves. perhaps that self-obsession.

grace is love experienced

cw:antisemitism https://youtu.be/xbryq_BYRTg

justice is love in public

https://youtu.be/nGqP7S_WO6o

i'm currently feeling incredibly anxious given the news about openAI's new chatbot, which is able to provide coherent responses to nearly all complex queries of any kind.

my breath is shallow, and it feels incredibly bad to be in my body, as if everything is going wrong. it's like seeing a bomb going off before anyone else seems to have.

was talking to a close friend about this dilemma: on one hand, many would agree that slowing down is central to the good life. we know that it always seems to come back to learning to slow down and to pay attention, to meditate, to rest, to play, to be creative, to make art, to wander, and to do frivolous things with our friends.

and yet, we also feel that these things are the trappings of privilege.

is it immoral to write poetry while the world burns? is it only the privileged and the ignorant who choose to spend their days watching birds instead of watching fascists rise to power around the world, instead of watching people organize out of hope for a better life?

this is the great tension: how to live slowly as the world seems to march inexorably towards destruction?

i have just learned (just now) that babel and babylon are not merely the symbol of the other against which the people of god are positioned.

no, rather, babylon is derived from the akkadian "𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠," or bāb ("gate") + ilim ("of god"). this word "ilim" represents the same semitic root word from which the hebrew "el" is derived.

in other words, if the dramatic conflict from genesis to revelation concerns the choice between the city of god and babylon, then in a literal sense, the choice is between "the city of god" and "the gate of god."

again, in other words, it is not a matter of the divine against the demonic, but one conception of the divine against another.

everything is floating, six feet apart.

has anyone seen what's under the water?

witch hat atelier ;-;

im thinking about how the reading lists i make for myself and others to learn from often comprise recommendations for non-fiction books and articles

but something like witch hat atelier can teach about disability activism and neurodiversity through narrative and character interactions. i wonder if i should take fiction more seriously.

update (11/28): since two months ago, i have begun thinking about the significance of fiction in this way: in fiction, we are not just frivolously spinning untruths. we are sharing in the very image of god, sharing in the divine capacity to create worlds for others to inhabit. this would mean that the question of the quality of writing is secondary. fiction, to the extent that it is humans practicing their gift for creation, is inherently meaningful.

what might fungi tell us about god?

for one, fungi can break down contaminants, bringing about good soil which allows creatures to flourish out of ruined earth

anna tsing writes that fungi thrive in human-disturbed environments - they manage to live in the ruins we make

there's also this

jesus once compared the kingdom of god to yeast, a fungi. so what?

currently reading:

• invisible cities, by italo calvino
• anything published by ryoko kui

[2:45 AM] i have been feeling a sickness in my bones recently

[2:46 AM] like feeling vaguely nauseous a lot of the time - especially when i walk into a grocery store

i know that sounds really privileged

whenever i walk into a place where lots of goods are on sale, i start feeling sick

like physically unwell

[2:47 AM] idk why

maybe guilt

❗ new political position just dropped:

trans-affirming complementarianism (it's totally okay for an AMAB pastor to begin gender transition but it's not biblical if they preach afterwards!!)

when i realize that two of my favourite things rn, "the owl house" and "the oh hellos" share their initials (i.e. TOH). O.o

wonder if there's anything else out there waiting for me to find.

i need to hold this thought.

• post on eukaryote writes blog
• thread by tim blais

if trees are weird, how then should we read all the passages about trees within the bible?

trees are polythetic. what we call "trees" do not share any singular thing in common — not even a common ancestor (unless we begin bringing in creatures which we definitely do not count as trees). no, tree-ness is in fact a convergent habit which developed in "unrelated" plants from a diversity of lineages.

what does it mean then, that it is this strange and riotous category — which we use to describe a promiscuous flurry of life — which stands in as the zenith of life within john the seer's imagination of the age to come? what does it mean for us that we are implored by the psalmist, in the very first psalm, to be "like a tree planted by streams of water?"

while driving for an errand, i saw a bird walking in the middle of the road towards my car's path. not wanting to hit them, i slowed down. the bird paused and moved back towards the other lane.

at the same time, a car had been approaching from the other direction (travelling in the other lane). i worried for the bird and their capacity to be okay while two cars passed right by them.

as i passed the other car, i couldn't help but check the rearview mirror just to check on the bird. seeing a feathery blob strolling about with nonchalance, i sighed in relief and sped up to the speed limit — continuing on my way.

i'm wondering if that's what jesus means for us to "consider the birds" — that we might catch glimpses of the heart of god. "are not five sparrows sold for two pennies," jesus asks. "yet not one of them is forgotten in god’s sight."

i think: when i slowed down and looked in my mirror to make sure that that bird would be alright, god couldn't help but look as well. if so with the birds, will not god allow godself to be distracted from their work to make sure we will be alright? would god continue to drive, uncaring, at the speed limit, running us over, to get their work done?

thinking about the difference (if any) between the awareness of finitude — which is oft-considered a virtuous thing (e.g. memento mori) — and scarcity mindset — which is oft-considered capitulation to capitalist ideology.

how can we remember our death without falling prey to internalized capitalism's maxim to make the most of our limited lives?

how can we learn to say goodbye to the fantasy of infinity (a lesson i'm very bad at) without forgetting how to say hello to all the "more" that breathes deeply at the ends of the grasp of the rhizomatic mycelia that we call our self.

sigh. it's going to be gratitude, isn't it? it always is. maybe that's the difference between the beautiful ephemeral and the scarce — between the precious gift and the hoard.

"sunrise and night can be so intertwined; the event horizon line between darkness and light" ;-;

just so wild how i'll never again be able to listen to astrogirl without the lyrics making me want to bawl

thinking about tsukumo sana, but also thinking about amelia watson

how strange, the fragile event horizon between being here, and not.

🎉 congratulations! you've made it to the very end

a feeling of accomplishment washes over you... 🧍