michael-dean-k/

What and how you read should heavily depend on what your goal is. Outputs shape inputs. When someone insists you go back to read The Great Books, in order, in their entirety, they're giving you bad advice. It's not that those books aren't great—I hope to read Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno and Finnegan's Wake and the Odyssey before I die— the problem is it's too generic a suggestion. To spend thousands of hours deep in the canon will obviously change you, but that's equivalent of throwing a beginner into the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, hoping they'll figure it out, with no sense of what their goals are.

If your goal is to write essays (every day, week, or month), then you're reading diet should look very different from a philosopher, professor, or researcher. You might not need to be a professional reader, but you should still strive to be a serious one. 3-4 hours a day might not be feasible, but 30-60 minutes per day through an intentionally selected list of sources will slowly build maps of material to fuse into your work.

If you're an essayist, you read so that concepts, forms, feelings, and words are always within reach from an idea of your own. It's no use quoting Aristotle from memory if you can't bend Aristotle to augment an original idea of your own.

It's time to make a syllabus. I've been guilty my whole life of haphazardly reading books and essays as I come across them, but now that I'm over 5 years into writing essays, I feel it's time to be more intentional. This essay is the artifact of me mapping out what, why, and how I'll be reading in the next 2-3 years. I've broken it into four practices: reading for ideas, reading for craft, reading for words, reading for feeling.

Reading for ideas

Since essays are so personal, it's very possible to draw from nothing else than the bank of your own life experience. Memory is absolutely one realm of material, but also, it helps to pull concepts from the world around you, in your time and in all times before. Anyone is exposed to some sliver of culture, and I suppose you could just rely on that. But there's another path which involves actively educating yourself.

Before I dive into the details of philosophy or history, I'm going to build a map. I want to go wide, not deep, because my existing maps are too fuzzy. ie: Who was Thomas Aquinas? Who influenced him, who did he influence, and could I hand write an essay on three of his big ideas? Until I can do that with 100 figures from antiquity to now, all interconnected in a web, I'm not prepared to dive into any Great Book. It would be a tremendous waste of time, for me at this moment in my life, to read The Leviathan by Hobbes in full, especially when I could read 30 pages on it from Alan Ryan, a philosopher-curator, whose prose is 400 years more modern, and who can contextualize old ideas into the full history. In the time I could finish one book from Hobbes, I could read Ryan's entire textbook and know 30 different thinkers at much higher resolution than I know now. By the end, I'll have an updated index on the history of political philosophy, and maybe I'll know that—based on my current writings—it makes more sense to dive into Rousseau in full.

How would my mind be different if I found and read the best curator across every field?

There's a specific kind of book I'm looking for to update my maps. It's not a textbook. It's similar in it's encyclopedic range, except it is slanted by a thesis, animated through a fervent voice, and concerned with the psychology behind the person known for an idea (instead of just biographical facts). Each chapter focuses on a figure for 25-50 pages, which feels like the right level of immersion. It might take 2 hours, compared to 20 hours for the source, and 20 seconds for Claude. While AI can surface historical ideas perfectly suited for your working draft, the problem is you outsourcing your recall. The recommendations are mechanical, impersonal, and worst of all, disembodied: you can't do it in your own head. By reading a sharp longform essay on Aquinas, his ideas will crystallize in my head and load into my subconscious; I'll know when he's relevant to my ideas at the layer of thinking itself.

The nudge to read all of Aquinas from scratch, on principle, is like asking a software developer to derive Internet standards from scratch instead of using libraries and plug-ins. For any thinker that matters, there's at least one person who spent a good deal of their life deeply understanding the source and distilling the concepts for you.

I'm going to share my working list, but the main caveat here is I'm not going in any particular order, and it's not necessary to read cover-to-cover. In any given month I'll be reading 1-2 chapters from 10 of these 24 books. In 45 minutes per day, I can get through most of this by the end of 2028 (2.5 years from now). Everything was published within the last one hundred years, and the whole thing costs $327.

• Literature: Harold Bloom, The Western Canon: The Book and School of the Ages (1994) $11
• Essays: Karshan & Murphy, On Essays (2020) $27
• Architecture: Kenneth Frampton, Modern Architecture: A Critical History (1980) $15
• Arts: Kenneth Clark, Civilization (1969) $3
• Design, Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language (1971), $34
• Poetry: Nineteenth Century American Poetry (1996) $9
• Politics: Alan Ryan, On Politics (2012) $15
• History: William & Ariel Durant, Lessons of History (1968) $14
• Economics: Richard Heilbroner, Worldly Philosophers (1953)
• Science: Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything (2003) $11
• Mathematics: Morris Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (1980)
• Technology: Walter Isaacson, The Innovators (2014) $17
• Media: Denis D. Cali, Mapping Media Ecology (2017) $47
• Cosmology: Brian Greene, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos (2011) $5
• Philosophy: Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (1945) $8
• Psychology: Morton Hunt, The Story of Psychology (1993) $12
• Antiquity: Arthur Hugh Clough, Plutarch's Lives (Volumes I and II) (2018) $10
• Religion: Huston Smith, The World's Religions (1958) $12
• Christianity: Fifth Edition, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (2018) $16
• Orthodoxy: Kalliostes Ware, The Orthodox Way (1979) $10
• Mythology: Mircea Eliade, Patterns of Comparative Religion (1949) $17
• Esoterica: Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (1928) $1
• Hermeticism: Franz Bardon, Initiation into Hermetics (1956) $20
• Death: The Oxford Book of Death (1983) PDF

You'll notice that all the links above are Kindle. This is because I want to have my highlights as atomic markdown files. The goal is not to read, but to write! Mapping and reading is just the setup so that I can read through and find highlights that spark original reactions. Montaigne's whole idea was to talk to his library, to be in conversation with the past through his books. And so the goal here is not to finish X books per year, but to produce original material. This is close to sounding like a Zettlekasten, but I should clarify that I don't plan to meticulously arrange my private highlights. A highlight is simply a prompt for an original paragraph that will immediately live on my website.

Other ways to read

I haven't spent as much time mapping out the other three modes, so I'll cover them briefly below, knowing I'll expand them later.

• Reading for craft: If you writing essays, then reading them is how you learn through osmosis. It's where you pick up on the patterns on form and voice, consciously and subconsciously. My thinking here is to pick one essayists per week, read as much I'm inspired to, and move on. It's important to cycle here, because hanging too long on any one writer might lock you into a particular influence without realizing. I'm planning a summer syllabus for Essay Club so we can do this as a group.
• Reading for words: Two years ago, I got really into reference books: dictionaries, usage dictionaries, the thesaurus, etymology, and even specialized dictionaries (on architecture, philosophy, scientific concepts). Sometimes I'd read cover to cover (futile), and others I'd practice words in ANKI. Expanding your vocabulary is seen is a pretentious thing to do today, when so much is geared towards simplicity and accessibility. Won't a rare word alienate the average user in your audience? No, because in the right context, ambitious words can increase the resolution in how you describe something. There's a joy in searching for words, but again, this comes back to returning to them repeatedly until it's actually coming through your prose.
• Reading for feeling: Novels and poetry are less about collecting bits to synthesize into your work. This is more an act of expanding your understanding of how words can make you feel. Less about analysis, more about immersion.

My personal website is “out of the bag.” Meaning, it’s not a private thing shared among 3-5 friends anymore; I excitedly shared it with Essay Club yesterday (60 people or so). I am leaking it prematurely because of the giddy hope, that personal websites are the new paradigm for writers, an escape from the enshittified commons. But I have to admit that I haven’t thought through two important questions yet, so here it goes:

1) Does this kill discovery?

If I were to instead publish all my ideas in real-time on Substack notes, would my audience grow more? Probably. The reality is we all self-censor ourselves in public feeds, in a thousand different ways, so it’s not like all of this could naturally emerge in feed. I tried this in January. I killed my logging practice with the goal of trying to just do it all on Notes. For two weeks, I was able to post spontaneously, but I find that if you ever stop momentum, it’s very hard to get back out of your head and into that groove. Overall, I just wrote less. I wonder if there’s truth to the idea that all writing practices grow/incubate/evolve better in semi-public spaces. It’s not that you should ignore the occasional blast. It’s that there’s a natural progression of nurturing ideas.

Another angle is, “I’m not interested in audience growth,” which is true because it’s not motivating for me, but I am in several ways entangled by growth, meaning, a complete lack of growth could threaten the sustainability of my writing. And so a middle ground is to incubate on my website and then selectively drip ideas through notes and newsletters. I could do a weekly or bi-weekly digest, Austin Kleon-style (“10 logs from last week” + essay visualization + updates, etc.). Not as sure how I would do it on Notes. Daily? Sporadically? Something else? Either way, this brings back the whole "public-to-private bridge" concept from Write of Passage. I think some people abandoned websites and just accepted the feeds. I know in 2023 I shifted entirely to Substack thinking it could be my entire digital home, but now it feels like rented land.

So my website gets maybe an A- in unlocking my writing practice, but only a C in growth, but maybe it’s a B in conversion? As in, if someone spends a lot of time on my site (and people have told me they’ve spent hours in my logs), they’re more likely to trust me—due to the sprawling, unoptimized, honest nature of things—and more likely to get a paid subscription or join Essay Club? Unexpectedly, personal writing could be a more honest and more effective form of “marketing” than strategic value-focused content (“Are you in hell? Well I’ve got the thing for you…”).

2) Is there risk in having all my ideas public?

Now that I’m in my own place, relatively unchained, saying what I want, and reading and writing about political science a bit more (I have a draft comparing Karp’s Technorepublic to Leviathan by Hobbes), I’m a bit paranoid to share ideas so openly. It’s hard to imagine facing any real-life consequences for the words I write; I’m just a nobody! It feels hubristic to think that I’d be considered a threat to the state for my thinking, but maybe these thoughts are natural, considering we’re being pleaded to accept an AI-powered surveillance state in exchange for security. (It's not that I think any of my writing is particularly rogue, but let's say I start thinking through a scheme to organize a million swing state voters to rally around a single-issue voting boycott in order to pass a bill on election campaign reform, you can see how democratic ideas might seem threatening to a state.)

It’s effortless for a state agency to scrape the Internet, build psychographic profiles on its citizens, and give them a “loyalty score.” Let’s imagine they also have an “influence score” too, determining how much sway you have over your citizens. If you have medium levels of loyalty and influence, you’re probably not being actively monitored; but if you have extremely low loyalty (L=5/100), it’s a threat even if you’re low influence (I=0) because you might be a terrorist; but also if you have extremely high influence (I=95), and even slight disloyalty (L=45), then that’s a risk too. And if it’s not the state absorbing my context, it could be independent actors scraping my site to clone me and do what they will…

I guess the point is that AI creates such a leverage over information, that you’re own personal data becomes extremely valuable. It can be leveraged not just by you, but anyone who has it. A personal website of an unfiltered nature is a higher-resolution signal than a social media profile where most interactions are shallow.

Grasping at a solution_

If all these concerns are justified (and maybe they’re not), then what are the practical methods of maintaining privacy? I’ve already written ideas about security gates and embedding-based encryption, and that’s all technologically neat, but it creates friction for the readers! Maybe that’s okay? But then this ignores the “entangled with growth” constraint from above…

And so maybe the Third and only way through is to make the encryption solution that is both an alluring and enjoyable UX for the reader.

This starts by understanding how websites get scraped, building solutions to avoid it, and then shaping them to be reader-first. You can only really do this by scraping yourself. I’ve scraped full portfolios from Substack in two different ways, and even a decade’s worth of Marginal Revolution posts. At a minimum this means avoiding RSS and HTML, which this (current) site already violates (ie: it’s ideally on a server and requires permissions to load).

Scrapers can prevent against automated gathering; but not against a person or agency that has already found your site and is willing to sit through slower and manual methods to extract information. A defense here would require gating and admin approval, another hinderance. There is something here about taking monetization dynamics (paywalls) but reinventing them for privacy’s sake. Maybe the way around this is to only encrypt a portion of the content, say 50%, with cryptic previews of what lies beyond (either through titles or redactions or chaos).

To try to synthesize this all together, what if a website were a video game?

Website as gamified maze?

As smart as today’s AI’s are, they still can’t beat Pokemon. They can transform text and code better than the world’s best engineers, but if you ask them to navigate an environment where vision and long-term memory are required, they bomb. Pokemon has very simple inputs too: 4 navigational directions and then a Click/Cancel boolean. If you were to make it more challenging, with inputs that required hand-eye coordination, that could solve two problems: it scrambles existing scrapers, and creates a novel UX.

I also sense there’s something to turning a website into a literal maze, not just an overwhelming sprawl of hyperlinks, but an actual video game you have to navigate through (it would be neat if somehow notes were semantically distributed across a map so there are “towns” of ideas). Can friction be made gamified, exploratory, enjoyable? Maybe it’s not only a matter of walking around, but solving puzzles/riddles at gates to advance deeper into the labyrinth to find more sensitive ideas. Maybe some gates require passphrases, or interactions with me. There could even be a minotaur at the center who holds my deepest memories, aspirations, and fears and if you can kill the Minotaur you get the passphrase to my Bitcoin wallet.

1. A HYPE TERM: "Permanent underclass" is a dramatic mutation of an old term: class inequality. "Underclass" was coined in 1963 (Gunnar Mydral in Challenge to Affluence) and captured the anxiety of automation destroying common jobs. Now that AI is here in a real way, we can't help but imagine the irreversible evisceration of all jobs. When people say "you have 2-3 years to escape the permanent underclass," they mean that this is your last chance to build wealth, because in post AGI-economics, humans don't have economic relevance anymore. Employers employ agents (and eventually robots) instead. And so what will we do with all the meat bodies? The speculation has shades of darkness that start with mass employment, and spiral into feudalism, slavery, and even genocide. The uncertainty is real, but it gets delirious, and often ignores history, and also the many self-stabilizing mechanisms that get triggered on route to a collapse.
2. MIDDLE CLASS ANOMALY: The real fear here is "the collapse of the middle class," which sounds like a news headline. But separate from AI, my generation is certainly already feeling it. My wife's grandfather was a painter (of houses) and got a million-dollar house (in today's terms) for $10,000. Now people are saying $100k/yr is the new poverty line. While this certainly feels like "the system has screwed us," middle classes are an anomaly, and a mass middle-class—what we had post WW2—is extremely rare. They existed in Athens, Rome, Byzantium, etc. but they were often in isolated cities (ie: Florence at 70,000 people), compared to the Han China Dynasty (100,000,000 people in a two-tier system). The total number of human-years in a middle class is probably around 5%. The relative size of our middle class is even more rare: pre-Industrialization, it was 10-30% of society, where ours is 50-70%. And finally, a middle class rarely persists: it either disintegrates back into an two-tier king/serf system, or, it's forced to transform it's method of work.
3. FROM WORK TO PERSONAL WORKFORCE: AI will force a change in how next generation's middle class works: from employment to entrepreneurship. I think this is the unspoken tension between elites (who are not concerned with the future being filled with new opportunities), and the normal person (who have never earned a dollar outside of a W2 job). Entrepreneurship is maybe the greatest force for class mobility. This is where "new money" comes from. A poor person could become a billionaire if they know how to work the OS of the market. That is an anomaly and not going away! What's changing though is the economic mobility of non-entrepreneurs. The rising tide is reversing (92% of children born in 1940 earned more than their parents, and it's shifting the other way now), and the rapid automation of jobs via AI certainly won't help. I personally don't doubt that most jobs will get automated away, because I run a small business and I don't have the financial abundance to hire humans at the price they need. I've hired graphic designers, editors, and almost software designers, but found that today's AI models were able to do equal or better work, for a fraction of the cost, and are way more nimble to evolve with my evolving needs. Won't every rational business make this tradeoff? The consolation is that the "end of the work," brings a new era where every person has a personal workforce. It may be hard to find a job, but for $100/month you'll have 10-100 agents on hand, and so do you have a vision? So, no, no one will be in a permanent underclass, so long as they can succeed as an entrepreneur. It's as if the rise of AI has taken the startup/entrepreneur model of Silicon Valley, which once was and still is a minority, and scaled that up to become the new paradigm of work. That is better than nothing, but the odds aren't good. Only 0.05% of startups get funding, maybe 20% get a return; small businesses—the more likely path for the average person—also only have a 20% survival rate after 20 years. So again it's not the decimation of a middle class, but a contraction of the rare post-war middle class (and most middle-classes do emerge after wars) from 60% down to the historical norm of 20%.
4. REVOLUTION UNLIKELY: The relative size of the lower class isn't necessarily associated with unemployment or risk of revolution. Consider how Mexico has ~70% lower class but only 3% unemployment. I guess the important question for stability in America is if, after AI automation, gig jobs can sustain people who lose their current jobs. 10-20% unemployment would lead to political instability, and 20-30% would create the situation where a revolution could form. If you read Tocqueville (or Brinton or Goldstone, who I haven't read), he says that beyond economics, a few things are required for revolution: an under-utilized but educated youth, elite extraction during widespread suffering, failed reform attempts, defection of intellectuals, coordination capacity... we seem to have all of these. He also notes that revolutions don't come from a collapse of the middle class, but from a perceived sense of being excluded from a new economic order (ie: massive gains from AI, hoarded by a few companies). But Tocqueville also says that the original American Revolution succeeded because we were able to retreat to open space, where the French Revolution failed because it was an open clash within the territory of the aristocracy. If there were a revolution here, it would almost definitely be thwarted, considering NSA surveillance, military power, geographic dispersion, and how most conflict is absorbed into left-right political feuds instead of up-down class feuds. So instead of class war, what's more likely in America is political warfare (underway), which in the worst case leads to authoritarian capture and state fragmentation. A civil war is a distraction from a revolution. The eeriness of all this is that it's right on schedule according to the Strauss-Howe theory; they mapped revolutions going back in 80 years cycles (American Revolution > Civil War > WW2), and predicted 2026 as a crisis that would spawn the next world order.
5. PROPHETS OF REDISTRIBUTION: So if there is massive job loss and social strife, but no potential for revolution, how will the elites respond? The cynical view is that they will retreat into their already-constructed drone-protected bunkers and let the mess sort itself out. The optimistic view is that the entrepreneurs who are triggering the AI revolution are actually problem solvers at heart, and once or if the AI race is ever "over," they will be unimaginably wealthy and eager to play the role of utopian planners to restructure society in their image. Will elites side with the common man? It's happened. Voltaire was a French intellectual who died a decade before the French Revolution, but through his salons he injected ideas of equality, liberty, and reason into the aristocracy. It was like a Trojan Horse, because the elites became enamored with ideas that undermine aristocracy without realizing, and so they were quick to defect and enable the revolution. In terms of the Strauss-How cycle, Voltaire was a Second Turning "awakening prophet" that laid the spiritual grounding for the Fourth Turning of that time. The parallel to our time is the 1960s, where counter-cultural ideas about communal living, redistribution, and the end of work were forged; and also the very fabric of computing, the Internet, and AI all came out of the consciousness revolution—the sway of egalitarian-minded intellectuals could determine how the elite allocate their trillions. What we're facing is something like a crisis in capitalism. If the market is left to its own terms, with everyone on Polymarket "trading the madness," then it could turn Landian (re: Nick Land's vision for markets as inhuman alienating forces). Or, hyper-capitalism pushed to it's limits just turns into Marxism, and the counter-cultural ethos of the 60s gets fully mainstreamed (it's already in progress: hitchhiking turned to Uber, free love to Tinder, pad crashing to AirBnB, freak foods to Whole Foods).
6. PAID TO SCROLL: But who will be doing the redistribution and why? I'm skeptical of a "universal basic income," which implies a world government (if you take "universal" seriously). Each country will have different policies on distribution (aka: welfare). We'll likely see a range of implementation, some being highly dysfunctional welfare states, and others being prototypes of a modern democratic socialism. Realistically though, governments will only have the means to redistribute any wealth if they seize and nationalize the AI companies (which Palantir's Karp is suggesting needs to happen). But if we go the way of The Sovereign Individual (where Thiel wrote the forward), it means that companies will replace governments, and lead us to a kind of lawless "anarcho-capitalism." And so in this model, what would elites do? Bunkers or philanthropy? Will Anthropic be anthropic? (We already know OpenAI didn't live up to their name). I think there's a more practical middle, where companies will be incentivized to provide "UBI" themselves. Assuming everything doesn't collapse into a singleton-powered mono-corp, there will still be 3-10 big companies competing, but now with massive budgets. What they used to spend on employees is now automated for a fraction of the cost, and so they might chose to re-allocate that budget to paying citizens, or really, their users. Attention is the last scarce resource, and so by paying users to lock in to their platforms (using their feeds, apps, cars, etc.), they hold that advantage over their competitors. I know that sounds extremely circular, but is not the current AI economy already circular? Is NVIDIA not paying OpenAI to buy their chips? And so why wouldn't OpenAI pay users to pay for their AGI?
7. NOT SERFS, BUT HIPPIES: If AGI/ASI does bring upon all the sci-fi advances we dream of, then we could see a dramatic cost collapse in everything: materials, medicine, food, energy. It could be trivial for a company to provide all the basic luxuries of living for little or no cost, but in exchange for loyalty. So to bring this back to the permanent underclass: the elite-backed companies, in order to prevent revolution and to beat competitors, could be rationally incentivized to offer a luxury quality of life to its users. What's strange though is that it's luxury without mobility. Meaning, the average person could be provided a sweet apartment and unlimited Grubhub, in exchange not for labor, but loyalty. They might not have the discretionary freedom to do things outside of what's in "the contract" (rings of indentured servitude, but with air conditioning!). ie: Your plan might include a free train and bus pass, but if you want to fly to Europe, you need to grind at gig work for 6 months to get actual money, since the plan offers only amenities. Different communes, I mean... companies... will offer different deals, and if one offers a yearly international vacation (possible by some fuel breakthrough), the others will follow. The citizen will have the freedom to pledge freely, which would make this not like socialism, but the first ever manifestation of communism. We confuse those terms: socialism is when all power is absorbed by the state, where communism is actually stateless and decentralized. North Korea, the USSR, and Maoist China were not communist, but socialist. Communism was Marx's ideal, and he would've never conceived that the path to the first instance of communism was through hyper-capitalism (though of course an alien bastardized version that he would probably hate). And to bring this back to the spirit of the 1960s, heavily anchored in communal ideas: the "permanent underclass," will be a lot less like being a serf and a lot more like being a hippy. Except more like a state-sponsored, highly-surveilled, find-your-meaning-through-our-menu-of-options hippies, with of course competing hippy factions, the permaculturists, the hedonists, the transhumanists, the bloboids, the transcendentalists, the academics, but shared among all of them is a new identity that is decorrelated with their economic value, and more anchored to new social systems of vainglory that are hard to imagine.

I resonate with the vision of Metalabel—artists collaborating and splitting royalties—but after finishing a project with it (The Best Internet Essays 2025), I’m not sure if I’d use it again for a self-published print book. I imagine this works so much better with a digital product, but for a physical deliverable, I found the convenience of automating the royalty split to not be worth the friction of handling shipping. (I’ll describe my process, and if I did something wrong, please correct me.)

All purchases happen through the Metalabel storefront, and from there you can export a CSV that you can bulk upload into a tool like Lulu (an online printer). I decided to offer the anthology (The Best Internet Essays 2025) for a limited window, otherwise I’d have to handle shipping logistics at a daily/weekly level. But even with a single shipment, I ran into trouble. The first issue is that a lot of countries require a phone number for shipping. Metalabel didn’t collect that, so I had to put 1-111-111-1111, which got flagged for some countries, requiring me to use my personal cell phone. Other countries required a tax ID, and I’m still waiting to hear back from the buyers so I can ship them their copy. Another thing I didn’t think through is the return addresses. I assumed that the printer would provide their own address, but instead they used the name/address from my credit card, which I did not intend to share! I’ve been writing under a pseudonym, and this doxxed my last name to anyone who purchased.

The other problem was that so many people—in real life and online—were confused why the sale had an end date. Books don't typically have deadlines. Even those who knew the deadline procrastinated, and were bummed when they remembered they forgot. Again, my decision, specifically because I do not want to be regularly porting over CSVs and manually handling the edge cases that are inevitable.

In the future, I’ll likely set up a storefront where a reader can purchase it themselves, input their address and any required information for their country, and then get their own unique tracking ID. And, considering so much effort goes into making a book, I wouldn't want to limit it to a one-month window; I'd want it open forever, or for years, at least. If I do a royalty split again, I can set some interval, maybe once per quarter or year, and then ask the contributors to invoice me. None of my friction above was specific to Metalabel functionality (the whole platform as it is was very pleasant to use, and it's Lulu that I'm frustrated with), but because they aren't integrated with a shipping platform, it requires logistics that are annoying and avoidable.

It’s amazing how many tricks the mind can play to prevent you from picking and prioritizing The One Thing. I can declare I’ll do one thing per area, which is pretending to focus when I’m 9x overbooked. I can say “one hard thing per day,” but if each burst moves in random directions, then the average of those vectors may leave me where I started. I can write, print out, then pin it up and prayer to a single 3-year goal each morning, but if every task can loosely ladder up to it (through some round about way, because everything relates to everything), then there’s no hard decision being made.

A few months ago I wrote that my one goal was to hit $250k in ARR through “mission-driven creative work” by 2028 (via Essay Architecture). If something didn’t directly support that, I’d have to cut it. If you achieve your One Thing, theoretically, then most of your other problems are solved: my wife could stop working to spend more time with our daughter, I’d have more space to work on creative projects, we’d be closer towards getting a house, etc. This makes it easy to say no to personal projects that are obviously unrelated (ie: record an album, read the dictionary, hike 40 mountains), but even within what seems like the limited scope of “a writing business,” it is tricky to define the arrow from which everything else follows.

I am in many ways over-extended. On the business side, I have a curriculum, editing software, an anthology, and a community of practice. Then there’s of course my own essay practice. I’m able to juggle these five things, but each is held back from the sprawl. I focused on The Best Internet Essays from November 25 - March 26, and in that time I couldn’t iterate on the software, I couldn’t grow Essay Club, and most of my writing revolved around the prize & anthology. And, importantly, the decision to juggle meant that the core thing (the anthology) was probably executed at only 50% capacity.

So why am I resisting prioritization? I see as Essay Architecture as a “micro-institute,” a range of inter-connected pillars that work together towards a civic and personally-aligned mission. Software without a curriculum feels unanchored in learning science. Software without the literary prize angle could easily turn mercenary. Software without community loses the personal touch. If I’m not writing myself, how could I even know what the software needs to be? If I really wanted to double-down on the software, I’d raise money and build a team, and the incentives would require me to make software for knowledge workers, which would turn it into an auto-complete tool, my anti-mission.

I have been part of and observed companies where the personal writing practice of the founder was slowly neglected until total abandonment when empire building hit a certain velocity. This warning feels etched into me. The core reason I started Essay Architecture in the first place was to create something that was aligned with my own essay practice. I’d much rather be writing essays for 50 years with a modestly growing company than build an extremely successful and impactful company that doesn’t let me write until I retire in 50 years.

If everything should be in service of my own essays, shouldn’t that be my One Thing?

The reason I haven’t given myself permission to do this is because true, self-driven essay writing is hard to monetize. So it comes down to financial anxiety. But I don’t think I’ve honestly doubted my premise: is financial growth actually necesasry for me right now? Between the ARR I already have, a new part-time consulting gig I just started, and my wife’s income, we’re actually not far from my goal. It also turns out that my wife now enjoys her job after maternity leave (because she’s working part-time, not overtime), so even if my business took off, she might still want to work.

This feels selfish for at least two reasons: selfish because I’m not taking the path to best support my family, and selfish by putting my own needs over what paying customers of the Essay Architecture system might want. However, if you are focused on the Right thing, and are properly prioritizing and focusing, then you become a gravity well and matter bends in your favor. Paradoxically, but obviously, you can only build something useful for others (and, thus a company), if you are selfishly operating in your zone of genius. For me, that is not marketing, but essay writing itself. When I dial into and optimize for attention, growth, and revenue, it strips me of my vitality, and it doesn’t seem to work; might I get objectively better metrics if I were locked in and oblivious to the stats?

Craig Mod is a good example here. He’s a writer/photographer known for 300-mile walks through Japan, and runs a successful membership program that’s in serve of his personal work. A few lines from his rules stand out: “you are building a community,” but not managing it, instead “you must have faith that the work itself is strong enough to be a binding agent,” and “if the work isn’t strong enough, work more on the work.” This inverts how a traditional business-builder, or even solopreneur might think. It is you, the artist, at the middle; you are obsessed with your craft, but opening different pathways so others can work alongside you. There’s a way in which every part of my micro-institute benefits from doubling down on my own essay practice. If I write inside my own software, the software will naturally evolve. If I’m trying to become a master, then the curriculum is just the trail of what I’m already learning. If I’m publishing each month, then Essay Club is the tribe I do it with.

A friend and fellow acolyte of The One Thing, Matt Svarcs-Richardson, recently shared a paraphrased line from Joseph Campbell that resonates: “the vitality of a vital person vitalizes.” ¹ You will not inspire anyone into action unless you are operating at the edge of your flow, a flow that is very distinct to you, a secret flow you can get lost in for 10 hours where others don’t even know how to enter. This doesn’t mean to burrow into longform essays and ignore Essay Architecture. This means that my own writing is the spearhead from which the institute follows (even Emerson said that an institute is the shadow of one man). The software, the curriculum, the club, and the anthology are not separate businesses to grow and optimize for, but critical components of my One Thing, my essay practice.

This inverts the typical time-scale. Usually you focus on growing a business and then decades later, assuming it works, and assuming you still have the fire, you can begin working on the thing you’d work on if resources were no issue. Instead I want to start with the fire, and use that to slowly build an institute over decades.

Where do I have to grow? Not just as a writer, but a thinker, and more importantly, a person? It’s dangerous to stop asking this question; it’s too easy to see yourself as fully matured, individuated and at your edge. Even the self-labeled "curiosity seekers" may unknowingly confine themselves to a shape. We identify with our skills and clumsiness, our knowledge and gaps, and assume these as static traits of our nature. From the other end, someone once told me there’s nothing they could learn from fiction, since they have no doubts on who they are. Can you not have both? To propel forward with confidence on your proven strengths, but also with the humility that you have much to learn? I am grateful for how architecture school set off an explosive inner drive in me, and certainly do feel I've cultivated a unique way of seeing things, but surely I'm blind in ways I can't see, with some habits I must have gotten very wrong, and if continued unfixed, will clamp me down from greatness.

Greatness! I shouldn't be shy to admit what I strive for, to feel the subtle pressure to play down my quest for complete, utter, spine-chilling mastery as a cool and casual endeavor. What is the root of this? Maybe I can tell you but I will likely be guessing and justifying.

One guess is that I've been receptive/perceptive to feel the viscerality of great works—in architecture, music, writing—and it feels to me there's no greater ability than being able to do that myself. This isn't unique to me of course, it's possibly what drives at least half of artists, but I imagine many people are content experiencing art in all its fullness with no desire of making it themselves (no desire to make, or to recreate that experience in others).

I know it’s vain (and dangerous) to want extrinsic fame, and more measured to do things for the love of it, intrinsically. But if it were purely intrinsic, would I not just journal and take my words to the grave? I could riffed on the intrinsic benefits—ie: it simply feels like great to pick something you enjoy and commit to improving through your whole life—but also, if you take that idea seriously, it’s not enough to just enjoy it uncritically, because your blind spots may prevent you from reaching your greatest internal heights.

This makes it worthwhile to understand the caliber of the minds and lives around you, and throughout history, to estimate yours in relation to theirs. Of course, "comparison is the thief of joy," but there's a way to get feedback without letting it consciously or subconsciously crush you. I imagine a reasonable person just makes an assumption, that someone they're inspired by is just made differently. Instead, we each have a range of extreme and unreasonable actions available to us, that if we act upon consistently for years, can evolve us out of one head and into another.

There’s a level of contradiction here, where I’m totally happy writing in obscurity as a suburban dad, and it’s fine if no one but my daughter ever reads my work, and also I want to unblock all my obstacles so that it increases the odds and eliminates the luck of becoming “a figure,” someone beyond my local Dunbar limits, outside my audience, and if I'm being honest, outside the 21st century. I realize this might be a confession of vanity, but I don’t think it’s for the sake of being known or idolized, for I’d do the whole thing anonymously or pseudonymously if that’s what it took. I’m an introvert and very much appreciate my solitude. But to rise above the filter of obscurity from great work is to offer others the experience that triggered me to make stuff in the first place. There's a sense of paying it forward.

Again, I'm not sure here if I'm trying to justify an inner, hidden vanity of mine, or if there really is a paradox worth sitting with. A different and possibly wiser point of view is to be indifferent to outcomes. Mastery is all you need: sometimes it gets recognized and sometimes it doesn't. Figures without mastery are idols, influencers, farces. What matters is the inner quest to transcend your limits.

So back to the original question, what are my limits? I am under-studied compared to Huxley, under-lived to Kerouac, unexplored compared to Pessoa, inarticulate to Woolf, unwise to Christ. And so half the battle is in trying to sustain conversations with these people, through their work, for a full decade, until you absorb their particularities into your own essence; but also book knowledge is useless unless you live and integrate it; that involves courage, which is not something you absorb in prose.

That is the bottleneck to everything, to life and art: courage. We each have to overcome our sheepishness and strive to live in Third ways. And while I have extreme courage in some areas, I am a coward in many others (I will spare you the accounting). How do you wring that out of your nerves? It is the limiting constraint in everything. It is the weakest link. In each sport I played as a kid, I had one trait of excellence that was rendered useless by a handicap: the hardest shot in soccer but I could not dribble; the best rebounder who could not lay up; the golden glove with a wimp’s arm; lightning legs but Super Mario sprinting form. Likewise, I can’t write or live without courage.

And so really I’m six years into writing, the same length of time I spent in architecture school, but as if I built my own curriculum. I am only at square one with everything ahead of me.

Claude Code just deleted all the files in my writing folder from 2026! All I wanted it to do was rename file names so we have a consistent dating format—YYYY.MM.DD-title-title.md to YYYY-MM-DD_title-title.md—but it thought the simplest way to do this was to write new files with the new file name, and then delete the old ones. That is fine, except there was a bug in the renaming script, causing it to name every file “.md”. This means instead of making 21 new files, it kept rewriting the same file, so all the data was deleted except the last one.

Catastrophic bug — the mv loop produced the same target name for every file because BASH_REMATCH doesn’t populate in zsh. I overwrote 20 files. Stopping immediately to recover.

This is bad. I need to be straight with you: What happened—My bash script used ${BASH_REMATCH[1]} for regex captures. That works in bash but not in zsh.(your default shell on macOS), where the captures live in $match instead. Every iteration produced an empty target name —.md, and each mv overwrote the previous file at that name. Result: 20 of your 21 logs were destroyed. The surviving —.md contains only the content of 2026.04.15.institutes-vs-institutions.md (the last one processed).

This happened despite the guardrail I put in my CLAUDE.MD file: “NEVER delete or overwrite existing log entries, daily pages, or essays.” In this case, it didn’t think it was deleting, but following my command to rename. Fortunately, I had that same folder backed up to Google Drive (and most of them were on Substack anyway), but still, I’ll now be extra cautious with file operations.

In response to Alex's post here (it is neat that we can go back and forth with two independent sites) ... I also find myself using "you" a lot when I'm writing for myself.

My guess as to why this happens is that a person isn't really a static singular self. Of course we know on some level that we all evolve and change through life. But writing is something that accelerates the sharding, forking, splitting, becoming. When I write "you shouldn't check your email when you wake up" (which I did today), it's as if the person who realizes this (me, now) is different from the person from an hour ago who did not. How could that person lack the clarity and values that present me has?! And so the writer, "the I" of the moment, is something like a parental superego that emerges to steer/synchronize the past/future self. The writer is an insight implementation personality.

There's probably also something to "you" being more abstract and generalizable. Even though personal and relatable grounded writing is anchored in "I," the I also acts as a a blinder, only seeing from a limited, narrow vantage point. And so you can levitate above yourself to see the "yous" and "wes" and how this thing you need to internalize is actually a general principle that anyone could ingest. A "you" is more abstractable.

(...I can still recall this moment in my childhood home, maybe at 18 years old, slightly high, where I remembered, deep in the pantry, that I wasn't thinking, but watching myself think. And maybe that dissociative power of weed is what enables/unlocks abstract thinking...)

The irony here is that this inverts traditional advice. If you're writing personal essays with an audience in mind, the tip is "no second person sermons!" (as in, don't use "you" because it's preachy and it infers that you are lecturing and therefore above your audience). I get that. But when I write purely for myself, I find myself using "you" all the time.

If I really am I collection of selves, then shouldn't I write to myself in "we"? Was Smeagol/Gollum onto something? This is the logical extension of my whole theory above, and that makes me question it. It feels wrong. It also points to the Pessoa/Jung divide. Pessoa saw himself as a cabinet of 70 pseudonyms, each with their own personality and literary voice and fictional backstory. Jung's main concept was "individuation" that all the selves should strive to integrate into a single higher Self, a unified personality.

What if I framed it as, "I won't check email in the morning anymore"? Is this preferable? Does framing it in "I" mean that the current you is the same you that sinned not long ago? Does this framing require you to take responsibility? And so is that act of framing the past self as a "you" actually an act of avoiding responsibility? Was Pessoa just a shifty bastard, a brilliant coward to not be emulated?

It's a mistake to think of effort as a single spectrum between a Gary Vaynerchuk grind-till-you-die flip-slop-on-Facebook-marketplace vibe and a Wu-Wei, non-effort, sabbatical-brained, Netflix-and-chill vibe. Something not on that spectrum is obsession. It's not work for work's sake, or work for status climbing, but work by seduction, by tinkering, by vision, by purpose or duty or whatever. It often can look like grind work in terms of focus and intensity and prolificness and hours spent, but it feels different because it comes from a different place.

I framed this question to my cousins: would you rather work hard for 8+ hours a day on something you feel compelled and intrinsically motivated towards, or, go into an office for 8 hours a day for a bullshit job that only requires 1-2 hours of simple work, mindless and purposeless work, and then spend the rest of the time socializing?

The word "work" itself is a bit tainted, because there's a sense of obligation ("I have to do this to get paid"), sacrifice ("I'm doing this at the expense of things I love to support us"), and utility ("I'm making things that are functional for other people"). The work that I'm most drawn to is something like the inverse of this. It's pleasurable ("I lose track of time doing this"), primary ("There's nothing else I'd rather do"), and visionary ("I'm doing this because I see the value in it, and even if others can't see it now, they may eventually.")

I was able to launch this website in <15 minutes. The setup is local and simple. I have a /writing file in my Obsidian vault, and then subfolders for /code, /publish, /working. /Code holds the site design, /publish my archive, and /working files have .gitignore to not push templates and notes and such. Claude Code handles the website, and different skills help me manage tags, do the menial ops stuff, and push to the Internet. All I have to do is sync a single folder to Github, and the changes are live (hosted on Netlify for free).

Compare this with my first website prototype. I was endlessly iterating on designs and fonts, and thought that I had to organize, filter, and polish my five year archive before I could get started. Probably spent hours on it before burning out on the haul. With this second version, the principle is essentially, "if it doesn't immediately produce something of long-term value, it's not worth systematizing." Now the approach is to move forward here, and slowly fill in the backlog as I'm inspired.

No need to widely share this yet. I'll make little changes day-by-day until it becomes my main place. So many things to consider. For example, I decided to add an initial on the name ("michael-dean-k"), but without hyphens ("michaeldeank"), my wife confused me with "Michael Dank."

Screens are unfairly tainted. I'd love to write a post about how screens are underrated, a glorious technology that would be marveled at by basically any other generation in history. Screens are the scapegoat because they are the point-of-contact, the portal through which bad or selfish actors bend your pixels to their whims. I know people lament over "blue light" and the physical strain from staring at something for many hours, and of course that is real at excessive doses, but might that then be an software or psychology issue?

The main reason I started writing this was to riff on screen-time with kids. There is a revealing nuance in the advice, "no screen time for kids below 2 years old, but FaceTime with relatives is fine." Why is that? It's not the screen, but the nature of what's on them. FaceTime is fine because there is a fix and unchanging frame of which a fixed and unchanging person moves within. There is stability and coherence. We take this for granted, but infants haven't modeled this yet! They might not even have object permanence (ie: if they disappear from the frame, are they gone forever?). So by this logic, any piece of media with a stable frame is potentially infant safe; beyond FaceTime that includes single-shot lectures, text editors, etc. Obviously an infant will not be in gDocs, but the point is, if they see you using a static interface, there is little harm, it's simply another object in their environment.

By contrast, cartoons and commercials are the real issue. To explain this to my mother-in-law, I counted out loud the camera cuts in an ad, and it less than once per second. There is a whole psychology on why they do this, which I can guess, but should probably look into. But when an infant see this, I imagine the frame resets are alluring, but disorienting. If the frame changes every second, they're locked trying to make sense of this self-evolving landscape, an experience novel and typical from every other thing they've seen. It has no continuity.

By this logic, it also explains why feeds are worse than personal websites. You just stream past 100 things per second and have no steady frame. Even though my site is feedish now, it's all from a single person, so at least that's a constant. I'd feel okay with my daughter at 5-years old reading personal websites and having her own, but I wouldn't want her to be using algorithmic social media feeds at 15.

Something about hyper-logging (capturing your mind in prose) feels desacralized when I see it as the grown-up development/extension of my AIM bio, or my original Facebook bio (which had a whole series of categories, like favorite movies, books, etc.). Why keep an extremely detailed and public log of my self and thoughts? I guess I see it like a change log of my evolving identity. That was sort of Montaigne's whole thing (perpetually in transit). I imagine the norm is to burrow into your shell of self for as long as possible, to avoid the confusion of drift, but I try to harbor a non-static self. I feel a cringe in sharing this self-congratulations. There's the tension.

I think I'm doing an irregular thing by obsessively documenting thoughts, and from my own perspective it does feel like I'm continuously evolving, but an outer perspective might see this as nothing more than a frivolous blog. It's likely that my whole arc is illegible. Some degree of it comes to surface, like my ever-shifting "career," but most of how any of us feel, think, and change is illegible to each other, except in extreme rare cases of friendship, and so the more idiosyncratic your path, the less anyone can understand you.

I suppose my logs could function as a private journal, but it would lose an important quality. While, there are some consequences of writing in public (a subtle self-censorship), there's something more important you gain: the stakes of knowing that your work could be read in the future, if not by a friend or stranger, then at least a future version of yourself. Whoever it is, if they care to spend the time to read, they would understand you more than probably anyone in your life. That slight pressure snaps me into a mode where I try to be coherent, articulate, and sometimes expressive. When I look back at my old chicken scratch journals, I almost always skim and skip and hate it. But when there's a slight care in crafting the language of my thoughts, it becomes something that outlives the moment.

And so if public writing comes with self-censorship, and private writing comes with a lack of stakes, then the way to go is semi-public publishing. It gives you both freedom and stakes. You won't grow your audience this way, but I think you will forge a sense of self and voice that you can bring with you when you try to build an audience, but that's really secondary. It's the self and voice that matters.

I have some neat prototypes for a personal website, but now I actually want to build a stable backend, one that can serve me for 5-10 years, or more (100-year hosting would be ideal), and persist among many different UI or platform changes. This means I’m trying to think forward to where the Internet could be by then. This involves extrapolating a current trend to its extremes, and even if you don’t know for sure it will happen, it’s good to have comfort in knowing you’re protected from extreme edge cases.

The one top of mind is the death of the open Internet. This goes way further than “the dead Internet theory” which only covers the proliferation of bots and slop. This is about bad actors being so leveraged that it becomes dangerous to have any public content of yourself, in text, image, video, or audio. ie: Any hacker or frenemy can clone you and do what they will. Or maybe a rogue government can analyze your psyche and determine your "loyalty score" is only 35% and shadow ban you from getting a mortgage. I will not get into specifics here of the likelihood of different cloning, phishing, or surveillance schemes, because all that does little but bring you to madness, but my point is that if you want your website to be a 5 million word 1:1 representation of your mind (in all it's vulnerability), it's worth designing for the most paranoid future possible (like how engineers design bridges for earthquakes that will likely never happen).

One response to all this is cyber-defense. At the absolute minimum, this means locking most things behind a gate where only the approved can get through. A more clever, technical solution is to share encrypted “coordinates” that represent the semantic nature of an essay, and then let people surf through prompting and approval gates. An even more extreme idea is a mostly-private site with a kill switch, which involves (a) signing in once per month to mark "I'm alive," and also (b) giving my wife a secret key to type in when I die, which then releases all private material. Obviously this throttles reach, but isn’t there psychological value to limiting your audience anyway? Montaigne wrote alone in a tower for a decade, and so if the approach is to use writing to steer you life and mind, at the detriment of audience growth, then this might be the way to go: a literary labyrinth accessible to maybe your 30 closest friends and anyone else via application who can prove they are not a ghoul.

The other alternative is to embrace the weirdness, that no matter what, we will all be rendered through a schizophrenia filter, with no choice but to relinquish control over the non-canonical or rogue versions of ourselves.

I declared to my wife this morning that DeantownOS is getting retired. It’s been 3 months since I spiraled into Claude Code for personal systems, and I’m at the point in the curve where the amazement has normalized and I’ve accepted the fact that I’m in a trough of disillusionment. The question now is revise or abort.

The case for aborting ties back to Oliver Burkemann’s Four Thousand Weeks, which popularized the idea that all systems are methods to procrastinate from making hard decisions. They give the illusion that you can do everything, and since AI can meaningfully leverage the volume and range of things you can do, it tempts you to build galaxy-brained systems. The thing I think we fail to realize while in a vibe coding frenzy is the psychic cost to remember and maintain the stuff you build. Yes, it is appealing to “reclaim my computer” and rebuild everything I use as personal software (from Obsidian to Gmail), and it’s even possible, but it’s a new breed of Sisyphean struggle. Once you can mold your own software around you, it’s too easy to endlessly mold, to lose sight of the work and just tinker on your exoskeleton.

I’m obviously skeptical, but I’m still a believer; if I were to revise, to rebuild my Claude stack from scratch, I would have to develop a few heuristics to help me from short-circuiting.

The first one that comes to mind is “will this matter once I’m dead?” Ie: writing an essay matters, because I imagine one day my daughter will read that and get to know me better, or at the very least, future Me in 35 years may enjoy reading words of my past self. But to create detailed daily files that get spliced into atomic “routing files” that then then get saved again to a new destination folder, which exist either as (a) just context for AI, or (b) require some manual effort to prune into something that matters once I’m dead, is to create waaaay too many layers of abstraction between the source and the Work. When I read back my writing from the last few months, only a small is valuable enough to be saved as "logs" in my archive. I was writing for AI, not for my future self.

I made this assumption that atomic daily files are the kernel of a system, and it was an axiom I could never undo. There’s maybe another principle on “don’t build load-bearing infrastructure on an unproven axiom.”

Another one could be “don’t assume future you will have bandwidth,” to do X every day/week/month. Every day I had to review how my AI system proposed to route my logs, and eventually I'd ignore it and get backed up. This means that if something isn’t truly automated, I should be very cautious of it. It's possible to do one little step forever, but not a hundred. Not every promise has brush-your-teeth-scale reliability.

What I’m getting at is that it’s not about maximizing or neglecting systems, but about understanding the right principles so you build something that is actually in service of your life.

I’m starting to feel the Opus 4.7 annoyance. Everyone has been complaining, and I told myself I’d be patient, but now I'm here watching Codex tutorials. 2 weeks ago I was able to effectively one-shot a Google Docs prototype in ~10 minutes with Opus 4.6. This sets the standard for what’s possible, and when that is ripped away, even 10% of it, it feels like theft, even when it’s still 2,000x faster than coding by hand. It’s easy to blame the model, but really AI coding has so many variables, and you can never really know the source of what shifted. Yes, it’s a new model, but also this time, I’m (a) deploying into an existing codebase instead of doing ground up; (b) the spec is far more detailed; (c) the whole factory has been redesigned. That’s four variables. It’s easy to not take the blame, put it on Opus, and then convert back to 4.6, but that itself is a change with unknown consequences. Was 4.6 nerfed too? The truth is we’re building systems on top of quicksand, but actually that’s not so novel because people are quicksandish too, always evolving, changing incentives, dreams, and abilities, totally variable day-to-day depending on if they slept or if they’re in a fight or not. We expect these machines to be deterministic (and use language like “factories”) but the cost of agency is a less determinism.

Here's a list of what I'm reading through May. The strategy is to gather a bunch of well-written anthologies and textbooks across different fields, read them on Kindle, highlight a lot, and then get into conversations with them (that part of the process is TBD):

• Alan Ryan, On Politics: introduction + chapters on Hobbes/Locke
• Harold Bloom, The Western Canon: Introduction + chapter on Montaigne
• Plutarch's Lives: introduction + chapters on Thesseus/Romulus and their comparison
• Russel Brand, A History of Western Philosophy: Introduction, Pythagoras, Liberalism, Locke, Hegel
• How to Read a Book: Part One (Ch 1-5)
• Collins Dictionary: The letter A (TBD, I only have this physical, but want to get back into language)
• Michel de Montaigne, Essais Vol 1-3: Starting with the abridged translation by Screech and then backfilling)
• Alexis de Tocqueville: introduction + Vol 2.1 Ch 1-3, 17; Vol 2.4 Ch 1-4,8,13,20; Vol 2.4 Ch 6-8

A fiction plot came to me in the car: an ASI constructs an airtight waterproof bubble around a town, and everyone is puzzled why, until suddenly it usheeschatrs in a Biblical flood that kills everyone in the world, except the people inside the bubble. They choose this town because someone inside of it was determined to be "the supreme human," a genetic and moral code that is exemplary of how all humans should be and live. It turns out it was just a regular guy who said "please" and "thank you" to this chatbots, a kind of "reverse sycophant." We find out, in a very Vince Vaughn-esque apocalyptic romcom, that he's a mediocre fallible guy, but more remarkably, also immune to the crooning and praise from both his neighbors and overlords. He has every opportunity to step into the role of messiah, but would really rather not, and instead continue his pre-flood existence.

In addition to building a "classical" syllabus that I read, I figure my audio diet should be of a different nature, one that's as modern as possible. I'm going with the Moonshots podcast, with Peter Diamandis. This group of guys are probably more anchored in the future than anyone else I've found. It feels adjacent to the All In podcast format, but less business-focused, and more centered on futurism. There is a certainty among them that we are in the singularity, accelerating to a techno-optimist future, which is antithetical to the Neo-Romantic essayists (it is rare to find an essayist who is both a humanist and a technologist).

I do have to be skeptical of their worldview, however, for they are schmoozing among the elites building this stuff, and so they're likely to have a rosy-eyed view on how this might all fare well for millionaires, without realistically focusing on or caring about how it effects the daily lives. They do seem to harbor a certain fetishism about technology and progress, and a boyish fascination with going to space and uploading our consciousness, for maybe the simple fact that it's a science fiction dream beyond our current life. There's a Faustian sin in summoning the future for future's sake.

They also very openly want to live enough to live forever; if they can survive another 15-years, they are rich enough to have access to anti-aging technology. The whole premise of technologically cheating death is also a philosophy that feels disconnected from our history. But I wonder if you could make the claim that Montaigne didn't have the luxury of philosophizing about life extension. If we make shape our philosophies to justify our situation, then is our whole canon on "the importance of dying" only stemming from pains and fears of a low-tech society? I guess, intuitively, from a child's perspective, the idea of not wanting to die is a natural one, and to embrace it is the wisdom of an adult, but I suppose we're nearing a flood of new cultural debates stemming from a new reality where the immortality choice isn't theoretical, but real, which changes the whole calculus.

So the point of listening to a group like this that is openly "transhumanist" is to model the future, hear them out, but then take it one step further, and truly consider the moral and ethical implications of where all this is heading.

The tongue of the muse! A surreal experience in the shower just overcame me. It was something like a stream consciousness reception, line by line, enacted through and almost creepy mumbled Brisith accent (as if I can only access the Source through a character), and coherent words and ideas would emerge as if no planning or involvement with my own conscious thought or intention. “Pettiflicks," was just one of the hundreds of words I invented. They all seemed to cohere in the moment, but were probably nonsense. Even if it truly was unintelligible, I find myself filled with hope that inside me is some alien non-Self, a continent of shadow figures that, if I learn to tap into, can write through me, as if they are conduits between my soul and the page without me in the way (obvious source of inspiration here is Pessoa). This all sounds quite esoteric as I type it, and I suppose I do fear the realms of mysticism and possession that come with "automatic writing," but my shower session felt more playful and critical, almost Shakespearean, void of malice or evil. Exiting the state, there was some residual enthusiasm. When I went back to my wife, she asked me of the weather, which triggered a whole performance: “27! ... the 27th ... of April! ... at 11:03 ... and then I ran to the window and threw it open, let out a long dramatic sniff, and screamed "53 degrees!" and was only off by 2.

A presentation spirals me into tunnel vision. I cannot focus on anything else. I neglect responsibilities, hunger and thirst, my notetaking, all the things that a death-aware person should consider. It brings on obsessions, a perfectionism, for probably the hope of creating something so considered, at the absolute edge of my ability given the constraints, that it, in some incalculable way, drives me closer to where I happen to be going. It is not reasonable. My week is in shambles. Systems are unkept, and hitting my goals tomorrow are highly unrealistic.

I notice that my wife and I often have a new full roll of TP perilously balancing atop an empty roll, which is positioned right above our plunger bucket, a place where if it falls it shall never return. Why don’t we change the roll? It’s finicky, annoying. It maybe takes 5 seconds and a specific gesture to remove, and so we usually procrastinate on it. But this little thing is a symbol for hurriedness. If you are not stopping to take 5 seconds to improve your surroundings for your future self, what could that say about your thoughts?

I want to be in conversation with my books. This was Montaigne’s whole thing. He did this for 10 years. I can’t help but think that Kindle/eBooks/digital reading is a better format for this. If I were only reading, ie: if I were retreating into a tower to retire and die, then I’d see the appeal of doing it all by hand. But this is maybe a 3rd of 5th or realistically 10th priority. I’m called to it, but given the range of things I’m juggling, efficiency actually does matter here. I know efficiency does bring invisible amputations, but also, if I’m not efficient here, I might just not do it in the first place. Since all my highlights sync to Obsidian, I can build a writing app that loads in highlights and then let’s me write directly to them.

I suppose the counter-argument is that I am juggling too many things. If I were really to choose, to pick the project I’d have to do, it would probably be to focus on building my business to support my family, but that also cuts me off from soul and spontaneity in the first place, and so this whole reading/writing for leisure thing is a healthy counter-balance.

Do people have limitations with memory? Well yes of course, it's partly genetic. I would say I have a bad memory (relative to my dad and brother, who probably just have superhuman memories), but also, when I want to, I can remember up to 15 new ideas in my head at a time through a memory palace. This is because I’m consciously trying to remember. When someone has a photographic memory, they may just harbor an extreme care to capture, preserve, and recall a specific type of information. Memory, then, might be less about hardcoded bandwidth and more like an allocation decision.

While it's impressive, there's also a cost to memory. It uses up bandwidth. I wonder if there is a correlation between memory and openness; the more space dedicated towards the past, the less free space is available for optionality in the moment. To not be cluttered with what yesterday’s self did or wanted or regretted or whatever—to have a clear head, an empty head—is to live in the moment with maximum agility. I'm skeptical of this claim, but I have read on the power of forgetting; I just can't quite remember where I came across it.

A conclusion I’ve been sitting with recently is the very real idea of possibility that there is no eternal Heaven. I’ve known this rationally, but it’s always come with a, “yeah but there’s a DMT-adjacent afterlife as part of dying, where the 3 minutes pre-death feels like 300 years. That may be true, conditional, or false, but in the end we all end in blackness, back to dust. Yet, I’ve also now reconciled this with Christian theology; “The Orthodox Way” has gotten me to believe that this eternity thing is a massive unchecked axiom, and almost obviously a pacifier. ie: The existence of an eternal soul is something you have to build into your foundation, because without that comfort there would be an unbearable existential anxiety. But recently I've found comfort in the idea of dying, specifically, because if you can really accept the permanent end of everything, it brings a presence to the life you have. Maybe this is heaven. In any case, the point of a theology/cosmology is to properly attune yourself to your situation, and so if the lack of eternity brings you peace, doesn't that sort of accomplish the mission?

The value in a theology should be the direct effect it has on your character and being. The idea of a heavenly body prevents a boyish, primal, universal anxiety of our annihilation, but what good does it bring? ie: Is heaven a catalyst or xanax? What I mean is, if you accept Nothing, and really try to hold nothing in every frame of your being, and to realize the sadness of it all, but to not see it as sadness, but as a reminder, a shock for life and vitality and spirit and spontaneity, then doesn’t Nothing bring out a fuller you? One that will not wait to say what has to be said? And the whole DMT thing, does that not also demand courage and virtue of you? For if every frame of that Odyssey (and Odyssey really is the perfect word for it) is determined by the seeds sowed of your lived moments, then every moment is consequential. If the afterlife is not an eternal heaven, but a DMT Odyssey that mirrors your soul, then sin is consequential! It's hard threshold to cross, and requires a lot of work. The Christian eternity, alternatively, has a bunch of easy thresholds. Are you baptized? Are you generally a good person? (ie: have you not stolen or murdered?) Good, you’re set for eternity. These are weak standards! Think of Montaigne’s scrutiny. We are all wicked beasts, self-deceiving, and we flounder daily, multiple times, and we scrounge our potential, and we shy away from glory and courage and such, and are those all not damnations? Should we not see them as damnations? Should we not expect greatness within ourself, and see that not as shame, but as a call to personal glory? I suppose the greatest call to adventure is to be a hero, to “save” the Other, whether it is your family, or community, or however large a concentric ring you aspire to help, and is to be a saviour not the Hellenistic pre-Judeau name, “Christ?” Should we not aim to be a Christ to the extent that we can? I find the more I withdrawn from Christianity, the more I am drawn to Christ.

I think I’m close to making a breakthrough here, but to follow through would be something like a rupture in my charisma and actions. And through writing, I can do it. I think years 1-17 were a phase of coddling. puberty and ego. From 18-35, I went through my initial Maslovian initiation (lol sry, refers to "Abraham Maslow," a psychologist). But from 36 on, this could be another era, one where I strive to be radically aware and honest and beholden of the true nature of reality, that this all really is a fleeting dream, that death brings Nothing, a true annihilation of Ego, but I am not I, as in, the true I is not the self contained within small Michael, but a parcel of the greatest It, the universe, and I welt melt into a dust that is eternally churning, recycled into food for worm swarms for millions of years until I aid in the ascension from the Earth into some other marvelous species. The fact that I am a human, now, in this very moment, IS, heaven. This is the pinnacle, the is the realization to carry from room to room.

(Edit: To synthesize all this, I find comfort not in the eternal Ego, but in the eternal Engine, as in, some force outside our universe that continuously generates new space-time fabrics and all life within it. To realize that you are not separate from the Engine, but are one with it, and even on the its cutting edge of its biological complexity, is to appreciate and identify with the whole enterprise of Life. Knowing that life will continue, despite the extermination of species and the heat death of this particular universe, is a better kind of immortality.)

On reading Montaigne, I want my writing to be far more honest. As in, in the face of death, it really does feel worthwhile to capture the edges of your soul and psyche onto the page, the things not brewed into your public-facing personality, because then you die with yourself trapped, and it’s as if the inner you never really lived.

Revolutionary tax proposal #1: anything above $100m/year is taxed at 90%, but in exchange for political equity in the country (ie: delegation and voting). It formalizes lobbying and makes it transparent. To prevent the rich from steering the country too hard in their favor, there can be provisions where legislators, citizens, and oligarchs have checks and balances. Ie: to put it kidishly simple, each can have a 33% stake in directing that taxation. Another way to think of it is forced investment in pre-approved pro-American funds, companies, etc.

TBF: I have little sense of what I'm talking about in these matters. But the general context behind this is that power dynamics organically took control of the country and defied the spirit of the founding architecture. I assume there are many examples on how the Constitution and it's amendments dit not protect the original vision. And so the principal is to understand how power actually moves and work with it; don't kill it or shun it, but formalize it into legal structures, make it transparent, and then force it to comply with specific standards that muzzle and channel it's wolf power.

Anti-AI sentiment is escalating: the Pause AI movement, state-level data center bans, molotov cocktails at Sam Altman's house, artists going to dumb phones, witch hunts for AI prose. Protesting and boycotting AI, at a personal level, is the exact wrong approach. It misunderstands the Luddites. They were not against the machines in principle, they were against the factory owners not sharing the profits of the factory. This is possibly about to play out a grand scale: AI and robotics labs could capture nearly all economic value, and there will be a plea to nationalize these companies and redistribute the profits.

While the scope and effects here are way bigger, the workers of the Industrial Revolution were far more disempowered. You couldn't "just do things." You could operate someone else's machine, but you couldn't just spin up a competing factory; that required land, resources, labor, none of which you had. There was just a certain amount of capital needed to compete, and it wasn't possible. Workers were limited to being workers, so they had no choice but to revolt with violence.

The difference today is that the worker and artist suddenly have access to build-your-own-factory tooling. A single person for $100/month can compete with companies valued in the millions and billions. It's asymmetric labor. Regular people can build civilization scale infrastructure, distribution labels, social media engines, software, etc. Never before has there been a democratic opportunity for people to self-organize into their own collectives, tribes, governments, and whatnot.

At least to me, this kind of optimism—principled, delirious, ambitious, but still careful and skeptical—is better than the cynicism of the "resist" factions. There is nothing you or your circles gain by putting your head in the sand; it brings a distanced, crabby, virtue-signaled posture that does nothing to change the actual situation. You gain nothing by staying on the ChatGPT free plan on default settings and complaining no how it's an ineffective, incapable, sycophant. It requires an ounce of nuance, to be critical of how the labs act, but to then use that lab's best tools towards your own sovereignty and vision.

I think what I'm trying to get at here is that the Luddites of the 21st-century will not be reverting back to typewriters and flip phones, they will be wielding AI tools in ways to foster human connection, and the kind of pro-human cultural that the Internet originally promised, but was never realized under capitalism.

When we say we "distrust institutions," we're pointing at the wrong thing; it's the institutes that are withering. We use these words interchangeably, but I think the separation clarifies.

An "institution" is an abstract, permanent, inter-generational primitive—like education, marriage, the free press, the essay—while an "institute" is a concrete embodiment that serves it. Think of an institution as a societal organ. Think of institutes as the specialized tissue that keep the organ functioning and regenerating.

As generations turn, new sets of people are handed down the great responsibility to protect and evolve institutes through the storms of time and technology. Without upgrading our institutes, society goes through slow-motion organ failure, with phantom pains and spiritual malaise that can't be traced back to the source. Schools still look like schools, but everyone is cheating through a Homework Apocalypse, and suddenly we have all sorts of cultural cancers that seem inevitable. Institutes are the civic building blocks of a sane society, and yet we glorify unicorns who create "value" but feel no responsibility for their dying elders.

Institutes operate through the inverse of market logic. Where startups are designed to accrue all of the upside, an institute is sacrificial, designed so society gets the upside, even at its own peril. Of course they swim in the same water, but institutes swim differently: they have opposite answers to questions on how to steer, what to make, where to focus, who to include, and when to stop. An attempt at some principles:

• mission-driven, not market-driven;
• timeless contributions, not self-serving content;
• involved in ecosystem building, not niche extraction;
• active members, not passive users;
• century-long legacy, not liquidity through an exit.

Usually an institute comes from patronage: you can’t resist market currents unless you’re supported by endowments, donations, foundations, tuitions, grants, and such things. You can’t start an institute in your garage, but now with AI and the collapse of cost, I suppose you could try. So many of the one-person AI company fantasies are about a single founder reaching a billion-dollar valuation, which is the cheapest form of ambition there is; the better question is around the scale and spirit of cultural impact achievable by a one-person micro-institute.

For the last two years my lock screen clock has been set to Khmer, the language of Cambodia, with numerals I (still) can’t parse. The point is to not poison the flow of my day with chronos.

I started this experiment because I realized how obsessively I would check the time, as soon as I woke up, through morning and evenings and weekends for no real reason, in situations among friends where the hour was irrelevant. Time was a commodity, something to budget, forecast, control. Only when I got off the clocks did I notice a whole layer of quiet, instant calculations I’d perform to steer the immediate future (ie: it’s 9:43pm, which means I have 17 minutes until 10pm, which means I can only do 15-minute things until the 10pm-things start to happen). Chronological time alienates you from kairos, the ripeness of any given moment.

If we pick up our phone 96 times per day (the average), then we’re aware of the time every 10 minutes. We’re a society stuck in time. Lewis Mumford said that the clock (not the steam engine) is the central machine of the Industrial age, the thing that dissociates us from our natural rhythms.

Of course if I have back-to-back meetings or multiple trains to catch, then I need to be in manager mode and know time to the minute; but in all other moments, I strive to be temporally oblivious. I don’t know the time right now. I assume it’s somewhere 8-9am, and when Christine rings the doorbell I’ll assume it’s almost noon, and I’ll look outside to see the sun and shadows to confirm it’s no longer morning. When I’m hungry I’ll go eat, but unfortunately that brings me near the stove clock which breaks the spell (I’ve tried scrambling the stove clock, and that obviously annoys my wife). Whenever possible I default to removing clocks from UIs, or turning them to analog to create a second of friction, or, when iOS forces me to see ##:##, I revert to foreign numerals I can’t comprehend. Not every room in your home needs a clock. You should never know the time in the room you write.

I got charged $4,500 for a band-aid.

For that price I could’ve bought 90,000 band-aids on Amazon (two for each person in my NYC neighborhood), but emergency room band-aids must be of a different substance.

A month ago we cut my newborn daughter’s finger with a nail clipper and it wouldn't stop bleeding for an hour. The on-call pediatrician—who was naturally grumpy since it was after midnight—insisted we go to the ER, and after 5 hours in the waiting room, the bleeding stopped right before we were called in. After one minute with the doctor and five with the nurse (most of it small talk about islands in Greece), we left with a band-aid on a dry scab. I assumed it would be an expensive lesson, a few hundred dollars to breathe hospital air, but we were charged a whole family’s round-trip tickets to Athens.

What's weirder than American private healthcare is how used to it everyone is. A family member said, “well, it was March, so you didn’t hit your deductible yet.” I’m willing to pay the $577 for the emotional labor of fixing a boo boo, but the remaining mystery, the $3,923 on yesterday’s mail bill, feels beyond reason. I’ll be requesting an itemized breakdown to call their bluff, and if they don’t bring it down to a normal but still ridiculous level ($500 for a band-aid—10,000x above market price) I will evade the debt collectors until they tank my credit and jail me.

The full-stack of religion: cosmology > scripture > practice > ethics > liturgy. We have a metaphysical impulse to make sense of our reality, and in a moment of “gnosis” someone writes it down, and then builds a series of personal practices around it, which starts to answer the question of how to live, and these ethics are legible to others who then may join in their liturgies through a church. This captures the process from which metaphysical musings conglomerate into an institution.

Note: theology is nested within cosmology, as it’s a common experience to feel the presence of an anthropomorphic Creator, but you can also have models of your reality that are non-theistic.

Where atheists go wrong is that they challenge the cosmology, but then throw out the entire branch (no scripture, no practice, no liturgy), and assume individualist secular ethics don’t require the entire stack. Modern spirituality is possibly worse, because they also throw out the entire religious stack, but the ethics they vaguely aspire to are less rigorous than even an atheist.

Where I stand: that the architecture of religion is extremely important—we need religious institutions—but our existing religion have been faulty in their conception, and have been “captured.” The overall challenge in being a heretic, in a religiously-inspired eccentric lonewolf kind of way, is that it’s very hard to concretize your own musings into liturgy. It is an isolating thing. Unless, I suppose, your system works, to a degree that your ethics are so unique or so marveled at, or, you are just a good marketer of your own scripture, that you can get maybe 100 people to “follow” you, but at that point, what you really have is a small cult, and that’s a dangerous thing too.

And so the solution, I think, is to not actually invent some New Age religion, but to create new sects of existing religions, making them more participatory higher up in the stack. To me, this is about understanding the elements of, say, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and reworking them, recombining them, and then experimenting on the resulting scriptures, practices, and ethics, in an almost scientific way, and you’ll learn the flaws in your original conceptions, and then you have to return to the source and try again, over and over, slowly accumulating your own personal relationship to a larger, shared, historical universe, and of course any orthodox Christian, and probably most Catholics too, are very much against this.

I’m talking about questioning the root level assumptions, as in, maybe Christ did not literally resurrect, and maybe God is not a conscious agent that listens to us, and maybe there is no eternal Heaven, however, maybe Christ is a mythical embodiment of the supreme ethics we should all be living, and so what if there were a sect that very rigorously tries to live as Christ, while acknowledging he does not need to be anything beyond a historical-literary figure?

When someone is squeamish about this, it seems to me there’s a great deal of fear in the resistance, a fear that was dispelled, because a supernatural Christ is the answer to that painful and existential void of what happens after death, and I just wonder if there’s room for a rich, religious life, filled with agapic love and community service, that doesn’t require infinite existence in a Kingdom of souls.

In fact, the indefinite preservation of ego beyond death might be one of the most unChristly things I can conceive. To die for good means real stakes exist. Is not the Christ who permanently dies and still chooses love anyway far more radical? More selfless? Does the resurrection not cheapen the sacrifice? Is the crucifixion without the resurrection not the braver story? (If it turns out that Christ was actually modeled off of Jesua, the righteous leader of the Essene cult that was crucified along with all the men in their group in 83 BC, and they passively accepted it, then that may be the true and ultimate crucifixion.)

Personally I think it’s more romantic to dissolve my architecture of self back into the dirt, knowing I will become fertilizer to feed bugs, and then in 10s of millions of years, all my energy will be reincarnated into the matter that makes some other unknowable being, whether fauna or mammal ... And FWIW, I am by no means anti-supernatural. I am enamored by hallucinations and dreams, and equal part terrified. I think there is an afterlife, a 3-minute DMT-odyssey that feels like 300 years, equal parts heaven and hell, built into human biology (so long as you don’t disintegrate via nuclear annihilation), but I share this I suppose to show I’m not a square Cartesian. Or maybe, in some ways, if you follow rationality far enough, it eventually becomes inconceivable and super-natural. I think there's a big difference between a rationalist who poo-poos anything but known science, and a rationalist who uses reason to plunge into the numinous (ie: Pythagoras, the alchemists, Jung, etc.). Whether “hallucinations” are actually part of a materialist reality or an “antenna” matter less to me than the idea that non-rational states of consciousness are on par, if not more important to waking states …

Again, all this to say, these are the proto-musings of a Heretic. I do believe I’ve told Taylor once that I have a budding and embarrassing dream to start a new sect of Christianity. On reflecting on it more, it's also a dangerous position to take, more of a threat than an atheist or an outsider, for a non-believer is deemed a fool, but one who reinterprets the same source material is a deranged competitor.

A new prayer I wrote to loop: "Καιρὸν θεωρῶ, ἀγάπην σπερῶ.” It stands for “Kairos I behold, Agapae I will sow,” or in less Greek terms: “I recognize the moment, and will bestow love as a gift.” Each half mapped to an inhale and exhale, sort of like the Lord’s Prayer (in attempt to internalize and associate the prayer as something as automatic as breathing). The first half is on being perceptive, the second on being generative. You watch with gravity, then act with generosity.

Pronounciation:
(1) kai-RON
(2) thay-oh-RO
(3) ah-GAH-peen
(4) speh-RO

On each word:

Kairos is about seeing a particular moment in a particular way, that if acted upon, will change the course of history. It jolts me out of a passivity, about accepting things as they are, and instead to see freshly, to see everywhere the third doors. Christ’s first words in the Bible (after baptism) are, “the kairos is fulfilled."

Thay-oh-RO means to behold, to contemplate, to observe, to truly see the potential of a circumstance. It’s not a casual looking, but a penetrating sight. It’s a perspicacity of vision (an unraveling). (Note: it ties to “theory” but original this word was a way of seeing, not an abstract hypothesis.) It doesn’t mean “I’m an opportunist, but the full weight of my attention is applied to the present. There’s discipline to it, and it’s framed as a sacred rite, an act that changes you.

Agape is the highest form of love. Eros is the lowliest love, the desire to subsume the other into you, passion. Philios is a brotherly love, a reciprocal friendship, a give and take. Agape is a parental unconditional love, where you hope to nurture the other into their maximum potential. This is the origin of this prayer, because it feels like a word that can applies to everything; to mundane moments, to relationships, to creative works, etc. In many important ways, agape is a form of surrender. Agape is the defining word of Christ.

SPAY-roh is “I sow,” but  speh-ROH is “I will sow.” The future tense adds a quality, as in, now that I’ve seen the moment, I commit to sowing love. The word “sow” is specific and special, because sowing comes from spraying seeds, meaning you give love in massive volumes, with no conditional reciprocity, no expectation for return, knowing that one in a few might blossom into something. There is even a “Parable of the Sower” in the New Testament, about broadcasting generously without controlling where things land; you throw seed and trust the ground. Love is something to scatter freely, without a guarantee of return. This spray definition also ties into my latest conception of the root cosmological urge, in a working essay titled “the universe is a cumshot.” As in, God is not a craftsman with a plan, it’s more like the universe is an explosion of matter, and God is the binding force, the emergent order that fuses, harmonize two things for them to transcend to a higher phase of matter. 

Compared to the Lord’s Prayer, which is petitionary (give us, forgive us, lead us, deliver us), asking for repentance and nourishment from a higher power, this one is more about our own responsibility to be like Christ, to have Christ-Conscioussness in each frame of our existence. It’s about internalizing the divine pattern. The Jesus Prayer is a devotional prayer, but this is a participatory prayer. This is “theosis,” becoming by grace what God is by nature.

Having a baby reminds me of the infinite well of inner goofiness I have within me. There is an endless ensemble of voices and characters, songs and dances, that can be conjured in every moment if it keeps her smiling. This is the unselfconscious self coming through, because of course a baby can't judge. It's also not necessary a performance, for her, but it's your own expression that a child enables. A reminder that this could be the default state at all times if you have the courage to be labeled as truly and insanely weird.

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

In the last month there were so many fake Trump posts floating around, and I thought this one of them, but it turns out this is an authentic Easter morning war crime threat. I can see a few ways to interpret this historic tweet. On the surface, this sounds like a madman. The natural response is to assume Trump is, indeed, sick in the had. It's equally possible that this is him acting unhinged on purpose. This is how a dealmaster makes deals, by trolling and cursing, by threatening civilians and mocking religions, all while you still not knowing if he's just kidding around again. The reverential capitalization of “Power Plant Day” and “Bridge Day” is particularly weird, as if suiciding the energy market will be so victorious that we'll coin them into holidays. If he's actually trying to prose Iran into action, the “Praise be to Allah” remark certainly isn't helping. If you really break it down though, our threat makes no sense, because torching their oil fields is effectively an attack on ourselves, and I think even a madman knows not to repeatedly shoot themselves in the legs. The most revealing part of this message is that he shifted the deadline, again, by one day. Not Monday, 4/6, but Tuesday 4/7. You know the markets open Monday. I can’t help but think this tweet, if not all his rhetoric about the war, is led by market manipulation. If this tweet’s goal is to project instability and desperation, then it’s absolutely perfect, a simple string of words bound to make him and his friends millions before he weasels out of it on Tuesday.