耀
a
r
o
6
e
d
g
2
l
p
a
n

a
r
o
n
h
s
i
a
o
w
a
s
h
e
r
e

 

 

Post-holiday de-decorating for another year is now done. Everything looks very strange and spartan. I suppose we’ll get used to it all again. It will probably be easier for the kids to adjust than it will for me.

— § —

Every now and then I have this earth-shattering realization.

Today it came as I was carrying a garbage bag out from the kitchen to the large garbage can in the carport.

Few things feel as good, as right, or as edifying as simply getting your shit done. Your regular, everyday, nothing-really-special-about-it, shit. Taoism and Buddhism have long known this. Chop wood and carry water.

You forget.

— § —

Where have all the deep thoughts gone?

— § —


© JurriaanH / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Beauty is a matter of balance—polished and brushed chrome, thick toughness and flowing softness in leather, red and white and black, male and female, caring and rough edges.

The conventional eastern wisdom, which isn’t necessarily wrong, is that you can’t have beauty without ugliness because only given the one does the other become recognizable and exist as a concept.

I think you’ve got to go further than this and say that beauty is always essentially redemption. It is the only beautiful thing known to humankind; it is the essence of beauty and the essence of why it is appreciated—because it speaks to the possibility of our own redemption.

For this reason, for beauty to actually be beautiful, it must actually also embody, upon inspection, ugliness. Beauty has not just flaws, but evils, wrongs in it. Without these, we make the distinction that guys often make when talking about supermodels: “Objectively beautiful, gosh, so beautiful—and scary, cold, maybe even evil. Do not like.”

The reason perfection-as-beauty is ultimately seen with suspicious, fearful eyes is that it conveys the opposite message: “This kind of beauty can only be attained if no redemption is necessary.”

That takes it out of the realm of the human. Perfection is fine as perfection, but it has no resonance, no warmth. It doesn’t call do us. It isn’t that “warmth of the fire of one’s own mortality” that Benjamin talked about.

— § —

I have to read more Benjamin. I have to read more of everything.

I love kid lit. But also fuck kid lit.

— § —

Making choices is hard.

One thing rather than another. I mean, does it get more catastrophically existential than that?

Free will (or its illusion, if that’s what we have in the end) is a massive curse, the evil at the core of the human experience and at the core of the human heart. Who invented this shit? In the same eastern notes described earlier I’ll say that it would be better for all had it not been invented.

Leave us our mortality so that things remain meaningful, but free will? Only because it exists do we fear its opposite. But it does, and so fear it we do. But seriously, tyranny, crime, hate, immorality, etc. all exist only because free will.

Shitty substance.

— § —

I feel sorry for all these broken people I’ve known over the years.

Broken, torn apart, wrongheaded, suffering. Suffering deeply. Not even knowing it. So many people like that. I want to say that Los Angeles is composed almost entirely of people like that. Probably other places, too.

People whose own souls hate them, crying out in torment that the experience as doubt, and beat down and silence mercilessly. They are wrong, wrong about almost everything, both completely morally depraved and yet also, by virtue of ignorance, almost entirely innocent anyway.

You know that they are destined to suffer forever, that they are already damned. You can’t reach them, the real them, not even for a moment.

I don’t think there’s a name for it—I haven’t heard one—but it’s the quintessential modern disease.

— § —

I’m falling alseep. So that’s all.


Courtesy of Facebook

When the history books are written, I suspect that they will say that the invention and rise of social media in the United States brought about the ends of many previous forms of integration:

  • Many nuclear and extended families
  • Many local communities
  • Many configurations of civil society
  • The United States and others as nation-states

It is Benedict Anderson in reverse, or rather, with the directions of forces and natural boundaries re-written to favor alternate configurations.

It will be Zuckerberg whose legacy is the destruction of an entire epoch’s system of social order around the globe, at virtually every scale.

Archives »

May 2026
April 2026
March 2026
February 2026
January 2026
December 2025
July 2025
May 2025
April 2025
February 2025
January 2025
December 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
August 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
September 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
June 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999