“In good faith”

or “Of good faith”?

I'm working in my barn.

Midway between a church founded by Eleanor of Aquitaine, Huguenot at the time Michel de Montaigne was writing, and the home I now occupy, formerly the sixteenth-century home of the choirmaster appointed by a Catholic hierarchy to win the local protestant congregation back to the Catholic Church.

One wall of my barn is likely the remains of the tourelle of the château of the Abbé Laïque, the lay-abbot of this village, and my potager is outside the former tithe yard of the enclosure. And the seigneur to whom they would all have owed fealty was none other than Henri of Navarre – first a Protestant, then the Catholic King of France, and the man who eventually brought an end to the Wars of Religion; exemplified in the small village landscape in which I am currently toiling.

As the labour proceeds I am reflecting on the English-language Wikipedia article I have just read on Michel de Montaigne and his Essays. Montaigne's famous Avis au lecteur opens with a declaration that he presents himself to the reader de bonne foi. English translations almost invariably render this as “in good faith”. The translation is perfectly defensible.

But as I put away my tools there is a tiny nag, and it will not go away. In modern English, in my experience, in good faith usually refers to the manner of an action. If I act in good faith, I act honestly, sincerely, without intent to deceive. The emphasis falls on conduct. I may be mistaken, but my intentions are honourable.

Yet I find myself hearing the French de bonne foi slightly differently.

Perhaps this is partly because of where I am. I have Irish and Basque friends, and Breton ones too. And perhaps living amongst people whose languages have developed in such different relationships to French and English has made me more attentive to the nominal structures of language – to the way prepositions and nouns can carry meaning together rather than simply marking grammatical relationships that modern English would treat as incidental.

It has also made me wary of assuming that the grammar of modern English is a transparent window onto an older language. We have compressed some things that earlier languages allowed to remain more spacious.

The old association between preposition and noun can carry something that a modern grammatical analysis is inclined to tidy away. And de seems to me to be one of those small words whose apparent simplicity becomes less certain the longer one looks at it. I am not suggesting that de simply means from here. In fact, of is perhaps what interests me first.

Un livre de bonne foi. – A book of good faith.

Even as I write this, that reads a little differently to the Wikipedia article. That sentence seems to me to ask a different question from a book written in good faith. In good faith asks something about the manner in which Montaigne writes. But of good faith seems to ask something about the constitution of the work itself: What kind of book is this? And if I allow myself to take the thought one step further, another question appears: From where does Montaigne speak?

I don't mean that de bonne foi should therefore be translated from good faith. That would be to make the speculation do more work than the language warrants. Rather, the awkwardness of the thought has made me stop.

And now I look through the opening in the barn wall towards the old church. The architecture reveals its history without needing to explain it. Catholic, Huguenot, Catholic again. The old structures of land and authority remain in the landscape, even though the people who inhabited them and the allegiances they carried have long since changed.

And suddenly the word foi begins to trouble me more than de. Because here foi isn't an abstract word. Faith has been lived here. It has been believed and imposed, defended and abandoned, inherited and converted, even woo'd by music. It has been bound up with allegiance, authority and trust. And perhaps that is why Montaigne's little phrase catches me.

The Avis au lecteur is unusual. Montaigne tells the reader that his book has no grand public purpose beyond presenting himself honestly to his family and friends. He has not written to seek fame, instruction or public approval. Instead, he offers a plain and unadorned portrait of his character, habits and thoughts, preserving a record of himself as he is.

The book's subject is not simply the world. It is Montaigne himself encountering the world. And so he asks the reader not to expect anything more than a sincere self-portrait written de bonne foi.

As the author of essayism.org, I grasp his intention. The Avis au lecteur may even be an inspiration for essayism.org itself. Only now do I realize this. And now the nag is becoming hesitation. Past hesitation now, reluctance itself. I cannot quite accept the conventional translation without qualification.

In good faith can make Montaigne sound like a conscientious reporter of facts. Yet the Essays are not reports. They are attempts to establish a position from which a human being may speak truthfully about their own experience despite uncertainty. The essay is not founded on certainty but on a fidelity (foi ?) to experience.

I pick up a carpenter's pencil lying on my bench, take a rag and wipe away an area of decaying seventeenth-century plaster. And adopt the old habit I and Montaigne both share: writing to clarify.

In good faith asks: How is Montaigne speaking? Of good faith asks: What kind of work is this? From good faith asks: From where does Montaigne speak?

I wonder if the final question might be the most significant. But perhaps I am getting ahead of myself. Because I have begun by worrying about de, and now I find myself worrying about foi. And foi seems to open onto a much larger territory than I had intended to enter...

Faith. – Fidelity. – Trust. – Allegiance. The keeping of one's word. – Perhaps even the conditions under which one person can speak to another and ask to be believed without pretending to possess certainty.

Montaigne lived through the French Wars of Religion. Henri of Navarre, whose name is written into the history of this landscape, was first Protestant and then Catholic King of France. The very distinction between faith and allegiance was not as clean as we might now imagine.

But I don't want to resolve that here. The historical landscape has already done what it needs to do. It has made the word feel heavier. I began with de. I thought I was wondering whether in good faith was quite the right way to hear de bonne foi.

Now I find myself wondering what Montaigne's foi actually asks of the reader. That is probably another note. For now, I will leave the thread where I found it. – De bonne foi.

And go back to the work- the land demands attention.

This article was first published in 2007. The information contained in it is absolutely even more important today than when it was first written. Read on—and think about it…

This edition of The Doctor’s Notes concerns an extremely important issue: groupthink, and how to use personal firewalls can be used to fight this insidious behavior.

Also known as herd behavior or crowd behavior, groupthink is the ability of a collection of individuals to decide on courses of action that the individual members might not choose. Obvious examples of this type of behavior include mobs and riots, but also include actions of entire nations such as the Holocaust or the Spice Girls frenzy.

Groupthink can also be seen in smaller groups where friends may choose to go see a movie that none of the individuals really want to see—they just go along with the crowd. And that is the threat of groupthink: it stifles the will of the individual in order to support questionable goals of the group.

The Sources of Groupthink

What causes groupthink? Groupthink can be caused by a number of factors, but primarily there are three major causes: External threats to the group with low hope of a better solution than the one offered by the leader; groups with a high group cohesiveness and low individual will; and groups with a leader that has high persuasive strength.

In the first case, the presence of an extreme threat to the group can be anything from an outright attack to a steady pressure from an outside source (such as a propaganda campaign). When there is a perception that there is “no other choice” than one proposed by the group leader, undesirable actions can be chosen by the group.

Another cause of groupthink is the presence of a highly developed group cohesion, coupled with low individual will. Examples can include military units, families and friends. The individual does not want to offend the others in the group, or to let them down. When the individuals do not speak up or raise concerns about a proposed course of action, poor choices by the group can also be made.

The final primary cause of group think is the presence of a highly persuasive group leader. This cause can be seen commonly in cults, but also in companies or organizations in the business world. The will of the individual is sacrificed by the group to the will of the leader, no matter what the leader’s decisions might be.

In reality, all three causes are frequently present. Look, for example, at the Jim Jones Tragedy in Guyana. There was a perception of an extreme threat (the government, the non-believers); high group cohesion caused by living in a separate, isolated compound in the jungle; and an extremely charismatic leader in Jim Jones.

But examples of groupthink need not be so extreme. See what happens when a family or group of friends is going out for dinner, and must choose a restaurant quickly. The external threat is really time, the group cohesion is very basic (the family or friendships) and there is usually the presence of a strong leader figure in the group.

Recognize the Signs

But what are the symptoms of groupthink? There are nine basic symptoms:

1. The illusion of invulnerability of the group.
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group.
3. Collective rationalization of group’s decisions.
4. Shared stereotypes of outsiders, particularly opponents.
5. Self-censorship within the group, where members withhold criticisms.
6. Illusion of unanimity, or false consensus.
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform.
8. Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information.
9. Quantum entanglements among the group members.

Of the symptoms, the most important is the last: quantum entanglements. By measuring the psychic quantum levels of the individuals and their interactions with each other, a significant jump in energy levels can be seen.

This can cause the group psyche to “tilt,” if you will. While quantum entanglements exist everywhere individuals interact with each other, it is this spike in energy levels as groupthink sets in that is cause for concern.

By measuring the psychic quantum levels of the individuals and their interactions with each other, a significant jump in energy levels can be seen.

In particular, groupthink is a threat to the coming Singularity. A common misconception about the Singularity is that it will involve a communal mind or hive consciousness. This is definitely not the case.

Due to both the synchronous and asynchronous actions of individuals, the Singularity will be achieved. Poor or dangerous decisions caused by groupthink without the dominance of the individual’s will will in fact delay the achievement of the Singularity. For this reason, artificial intelligences are critical to bringing this goal to reality.

Control the Effects of Groupthink

But how can we limit the effects of groupthink? In short, use personal firewalls to limit the effects of the quantum entanglements produced by groupthink. Personal firewalls allow the individual to in effect “filter” the energy spikes that groupthink can produce in the individual’s quantum levels.

In particular, personal firewalls block negative energies on the Layer 3 area of Jungian Shadows. According to Jung, each individual has distinct shadow-selves that the person sees as separate and different from what the individual believes others see. The Layer 3 area of these Shadow-selves deals with decision making and personal self-assertion.

By blocking negative energies at this level, personal firewalls are extremely effective in allowing the individual to find space to express his or her free will within the group construct. In effect, this means the individual can think for themselves and be their own person. This ability is extremely critical in lower the existential risk of the Singularity overwhelming the individual.

While personal firewalls have a definite impact on dampening these resonances in quantum levels, the impact of future events is extremely difficult to predict in the present.

An additional complication in the fight against groupthink is the effects of entropic resonances. Not only do quantum entanglements affect the ability of the individual to make free choices, but the entropic resonances from the past and future impact it as well.

Fluctuations in the psychic energy levels—the quantum levels—can affect the moods of the individual and therefore their rational thinking process. Extreme events from the past or future can affect these levels in a definite, measurable manner. While personal firewalls have a definite impact on dampening these resonances in quantum levels, the impact of future events is extremely difficult to predict in the present.

A Call To Action—For the Future

But what can you do? Actually, quite a bit. Attend classes at The Center and learn to develop your personal firewall through pinpointing your Heisenberg center.

Refining these skills does not happen overnight, and requires constant hard work and guidance to achieve. At the Center not only do we provide basic and ongoing instruction, but we also provide many tutorials and workshops on how to improve these abilities in real-world scenarios.

While we have made tremendous strides in determining the effects of groupthink on the human mind, we are not there yet. Research is expensive and we depend on donations to make the strides we need to fully quantify these effects. You can help by donating funds to help continue this website and the work that it supports.

engenetics^.org is the key to the future, and only you can help all of us at the Center bring that about—today. Ω

Dr. M. E. Tabyánan Executive Director and Founder The Center for engenetics^.org Studies

“There is a direct tie between the information that passes through personal firewalls and the stability of the individual.” —The Connection Between Mental Stability and Personal Firewalls (1995)

---

Ask The Doctor

Question: Can we use engenetics^.org to model the political process? —Tom Long, Phoenix AZ, USA The Doctor: Great question, Tom. Absolutely we can model this process. In fact, we have been working on that for the last decade at The Center. While we still have a long way to go, we can predict with a fair amount of certainty election processes, as well as what leaders will do in certain instances.

---

What Others Are Saying

“I love you, Dr. Tabyánan!” —Justine Foreman, Washington DC, USA

“My family life is so much better now that Dr. M. E. Tabyánan taught me how to find my personal firewall. Thank you, Doctor!” —Karen Appleton, Los Angeles CA, USA

“My friends look at me funny now, but I know the truth: The Doctor is making me better.” —Karen Chong, Hong Kong, China

---

#thedoctorsnotes #personalfirewalls #groupthink #entropicresonances

In Stolen Fields

I had lost my own echo

No-one left to teach me to listen

I would sing but...

The hills.

Would never sing back.

One of my employees remembered something about me today. nothing important. we were going over some work when he said,” you dont like people moving things around on your desk.” i asked him how he knew, he said i’d told him before, i asked when, he didnt know. i asked if someone else had mentioned it. he said no, i asked if he had noticed it himself, he said probably. Hah, probably. i dont like that word. it means he doesnt know or he does know and doesnt care enough to explain it. either way, i found it irritating. he went back to whatever he was doing after that, i dont think he understood why i kept looking at him, hes not particularly observant. his work is average at best. he dresses like he gets dressed in the dark and somehow still manages to look surprised every morning that he has to come to work. hes the sort of employee you’d forget about five minutes after speaking to him, which is more annoying that he remembered something about me that i dont remember telling him. still, i dont like people noticing things about me. whatever, il think about it. therapy was later, she asked me how my week had been, i told her about the employee, she asked why it bothered me and i explained it, she nodded. Hahskjskldal, of course. of course she did they all nod, they all fucking nod. i guess its an important part of the profession. sit there, look concerned, nod slowly and eventually say something that sounds profound because you paused before saying it, she asked if i felt watched, i said no, she asked if i felt threatended i said no, she asked if i was angry, i said no she asked why i was answering so quickly, i told her because the questions were easy, she didnt like that. then she wrote something down, i assume she wrote down that im difficult. they all like that word, difficult. its easier than admitting they dont know what they’re doing. she then explained that i should try to “ sit with the uncertainty.” i almost laughed. this is her job, she gets paid to sit in a chair and tell other people to sit with their feelings. im sure theres a university degree for that. years of education so you can point at someones face and ask them how something made them feel. she thinks shes right about everything. thats mostly what i think its very impressive. she’ll ask a question, wait for me to answer and then explain why the answer actually means something else. let me give some examples. if i say im annoyed, im avoiding something, if i say im not annoyed, im suppressing something, if i disagree, im being defensive. very very, convenient system. shes never wrong, she simply changes the meaning of whatever you say until shes right again. i told her she seemed very confident in herself. she smiled, i wasnt complimenting her, she just didnt notice. thats probably why she chose this job, so people come in tell her something and she gets to pretend she understands every single one of them then she writes it down, very important work. dont know what we would do without these people right? she asked me if i thought i was better than her, i told her i didnt think about her enough for that to be a competition. she stared at me, and i smiled and she didnt, that was nice. ill keep going to therapy. not because i need her to tell me who i am, i already know. its just interesting watching someone so certain of herself be wrong so consistently. i have the time anyway, i go every day. as for the employee, I still dont know how he knew. and i dont like that. ill probably ask him again, but he’ll surrely give me the same stupid answer. maybe ill believe him or whatever, i wont.

im waiting to smoke tonight, i promised her i wouldnt. im keeping the promise, if i start again, i know ill probably make a much bigger mess of things than before. i know that. so i wont.

Sincerely, Difficult.

Is there a way to make this LESS like a business?

One of the things I don’t like about the music business is the word business. Some folks get off on it. Wheeling, dealing, shaking hands, money flying around. I hate all that crap. However, I think people know that about me and use that knowledge to get what they want from me. So while I hate it, I try to practice at it. It is a skill like anything else, practice helps.

I am not here for you, sorry. That isn’t where I am at.

I just can’t count how many times I have been ripped off. From lousy jobs and ex-wives to slinging records and guitars, voting, to tuition… I can’t catch a break. I sometimes feel like my real purpose in life, looking from the outside in, is to be a battery for other humans. I have so much energy for projects, socially and creatively, I often run into folks who help me feel this way, powering them..not me. That is not a good feeling. And it happens a lot with folks who like “the music business.” What I am certain they’re after is “music benefits.”

I speak for myself. If you feel like I do, I got lucky.

What makes this difficult is I can’t speak for every musician. We are all in different places and we all hopefully like different things. You may not be sick and tired of older hoarder types who will not play a song with you without a prenuptial and lots of signatures. (I have been turned down for collaborations from artists who liked my songwriting but couldn’t do it because I didn’t have enough followers on Spotify.) They are wrong to be that way. You may not be tired of folks telling you how to run your creative life like a god damn spreadsheet when all you want to do is finger paint with friends, essentially. You may not be tired of the only folks in your life who want to talk to you (besides Keri) are the ones who want to give you advice or tell you what you are doing wrong. You might not be tired of listening parties and feigning excitement when you just want to play guitar and write words with buddies. Whatever the case, you might like Subvert.fm because it doesn’t really feel like “business.” That’s a perk from my spot. It feels like a club. That’s what I am looking for.

Do you see the herd?

Today is a Bandcamp Friday and it feels like a corral again. “Everybody go here.” I say, “no.” Simply give me a credit per quarter to use on any day I want that is significant to me or my fans. I do not want to make an email for fans the same day everyone else does. It’s bad enough we all feel we have to distribute the same. Having sales on the same day doesn’t benefit us. It benefits Bandcamp. Maybe it benefits who is getting their data. If you are doing what everyone does, you are following one person, typically. Did you know that? A sure-fire way to get lost in the crowd is to do everything the crowd does. Also, they have to have thought this. So who’s winning? It ain’t the musicians blowing up my inbox a few arbitrary Fridays a year.

That definition of insanity that really isn’t a definition of insanity.

I think there’s always better ways when I get really frustrated. I might have to learn things, make changes, or even buy something. But I don’t think it makes much sense to keep getting frustrated over and over. If that is your bag, this may not be for you.

Keep the AI on Bandcamp.

Subvert.fm is different so far. There’s moderation of content. Some may not like that. They do not allow AI art or music if they can detect it. I like it. I think it’s nice to have a distributor where the fleshies hang out. The aesthetic is different over there. It’s more like a craft mall than a vending machine in a break room. I love craft malls! I don’t care if our music is your break room. But I’d like the store you get it from to be more like a flea market, not like a chain box store. Bringing my wares to the co-op market is a better vibe for me than being a brand or owning a business. Subvert manages to do this by banning AI the best they’re able and actually being a co-op.

What is a co-op? Let’s ask google for something it can still do. Let’s grab a definition:

A co-op (short for cooperative) is a business, organization, or living arrangement owned, controlled, and operated for the mutual benefit of its members rather than outside investors. 

Common Meanings and Types of Co-ops

• Business / Worker Co-op: A company owned and managed by its employees or customers (such as a credit union, agricultural group, or grocery store) where decisions are made democratically—usually on a "one member, one vote" basis.
• Housing Co-op: A residential building or community where residents do not own their individual units directly; instead, they buy shares in a corporation that owns the property, granting them the right to live there and a vote in building management.
• Education (Co-op Program): A college or high school program where students alternate between traditional academic semesters and full-time, paid professional work experience in their field of study.
• Video Games: Short for cooperative gameplay, meaning a game mode where players work together as a team against computer-controlled opponents or challenges rather than competing against each other.

A bird in the hand..

Subvert.fm doesn’t do Bandcamp Fridays. It allows for ownership. It is built from the ground up with the musicians it serves in mind. I am not just a subvert music page, I am part owner. This is important to me. Every software developer, every site, every distribution platform, every business, it feels like, is not going to let me own anything, even if I have money. They rent it out. They make up days you’re supposed to be excited about that are every bit as meaningless as a national holiday, maybe less. They quit selling anything, for the most part. They want a subscription. This keeps costs up front low for the ‘comsumer’. Sounds like a good deal. But we can’t sell it when we don’t need it anymore. All the knowledge we learned just to use it doesn’t apply elsewhere. They get our monthly for life. What they’re after. And I am just talking about trying to give folks a song we made. Keri and I hope our song helps you in a tight spot someday. But we worry about you wanting us forever. We’re more of a “let’s hang out and play songs” type. There’s no “future” in that. It’s about right now.

Meanwhile, back at the craft mall.

I am writing this on a Bandcamp Friday after I have spent a few days uploading 9 or so releases of an album, EP, Singles on Subvert.fm. I made artwork without AI per their policy. A while back I deleted all of our album art when I learned more about AI and didn’t want to be a part of that. Now the process is photos, a friends’ art, I even bought one of them. I have also corrected them on Bandcamp as I do them. But on Bandcamp, the atmosphere is so different. If our song appears on a page of a bunch of Bandcamp releases from other artists, it’s obvious to us a lot of folks are using AI. With a subvert scan, we are back at the craft mall. I like that better.

Finding your brand is finding your belief.

Folks love their brand names. Finding a good brand is much like finding something to believe in. We all want that. But it doesn’t exist very often in reality. Big businesses suck. Subvert.fm could even suck. But as part owner, that would be partly my fault. So I am trying to help it along.

Ownership helps the owners. So why not make them everyone?

When folks are granted ownership or a sense of it in products or companies they use or like, they step up to the plate to keep it. They may even think of ways to help maintain it. By developing a community-owned platform, Subvert has my vote. For now. Things change, especially in software and distribution, I’ll try to keep you posted.

Kelly Kintner, Songwriter, Producer,

The Kintners, Djembe Funk (Subvert Links)

We may often hear the word self-care, a term I first started hearing during the pandemic. When I queried this term on a search engine, here’s part of the definition that was displayed:

Self-care is the process of taking deliberate actions to maintain and improve physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being.  It is not merely about indulgence or luxury, but rather a necessary practice of honoring basic needs and taking responsibility for one's own health to prevent burnout and manage stress.

I no longer distinguish between mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. For me, they are one and the same — interconnected, interdependent. In theory, I see their separation and distinction as helpful for gaining a deeper understanding through analysis. But in practice, I treat them as one contiguous part of who and what I am, where identity and experience co-create reality.

And, despite my openness here in my writings, I’m very cautious about what I share about my unusual experiences and with whom I share them. There’s no simple or universal way to calibrate this kind of sharing. I like to think of them as layers of trust and confidence, with each layer getting closer to the center, which contains the whole absolute truth.

First, there’s the outer layer, which is for the world at large, where no information is shared at all: strangers, co-workers, neighbors, acquaintances, etc.

Layer two is where hints and small details of something akin to the uncanny are shared, but at a distance and in very vague, general terms. This layer, along with each subsequent layer, involves sharing on a need-to-know basis.

Layer three goes deeper, where parts of specific events and their details are judiciously shared with those whom I hold in close confidence and who I know won’t use the knowledge against me or share it with others.

The final inner layer is the most secure and the one I share with no one because it is the full and complete truth, with every fact and facet of events, memories, theories, and speculations. This is the layer I think most people are quick to violate in their need or enthusiasm to share their experiences.

Know that I’m not against the sharing of these experiences, just that caution and care need to be exercised in doing so. Forethought is critical, as it allows time to process experiences internally and ask thoughtful, careful questions: How well do I understand what has happened to me? How much of it is safe to share with others? How might others, even those closest to me, interpret what I might share? How might my sharing of this information change how people see me and relate to me? Will the person I’m sharing my experiences with truly help me, or will they use that knowledge for their own gain in ways that could harm me and my reputation?

I think it’s important for people who have experienced the uncanny, especially if it is over a period of time or a lifetime, to not underestimate society’s shallowness and pretentiousness. People can pretend to show interest or care, but the pretense isn’t proof of their presence. And in an age where everything has become a financial transaction where every aspect of our lives has been reduced by commodification, I don’t think we can carelessly share what we have seen and experienced in liminality. To quote Goethe:

Tell a wise person, or else keep silent, because the mass man will mock it right away. I praise what is truly alive, what longs to be burned to death.

I see no difference between self-care and the caring of my experiences. I’m the sole custodian of what I’ve learned and experienced, and if I do not care and advocate for them responsibly, then no one will. This is especially true in the toxic cesspool of modern civilization, though I cannot really be sure that it was ever any different at any other time in human history. Perhaps it’s more intense and all-encompassing now than in the past.

So I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to sharing my inner life, especially the anomalous. Preventative self-care means taking time to check in with myself, knowing what is normal and stable, and knowing what is unusual or unsafe and would require outside help. I certainly could not have integrated my profound and powerful inner experiences from earlier this year on my own. And when I sought help, I was very careful who I reached out to.

Not all therapists and clinicians are the same.

I took time to research profiles and writings of healthcare professionals. I did not assume they were all alike and would honor my testimony or my person the same way. When I found and settled on someone, I remained cautious about what I shared and when. Clinicians and therapists are human, too. Their ability to fully listen to understand my experiences is governed by a range of mechanisms, including their own experiences. I learned that the match would be imperfect, but that imperfection didn’t stand in the way of successful integration. The goal wasn’t to find a friend. The goal was to understand myself, others, and my world from inside a new reality into which I had unwillingly fallen.

For those experiencing or who have experienced the uncanny, above all, please take care. Exercising self-care is also part of the experience.

#Intermundia #Anomalology

---

By D. Bowman Nomina Numina is a journal of reflections, moments, and meaning-making of a life between worlds. Reply by email.

I have been thinking again about pronouns. Not because the subject is new, but because it has accompanied much of my adult life as a writer.

It has long seemed to me that pronouns matter because they support assumptions, and assumptions often support prejudice. In writing, neutrality is difficult. One either accepts inherited patterns of expression, with all the assumptions they carry, or participates in the continuing challenge to them.

My own journey began in the latter half of the 1970s.

I grew up in a family with strong left leanings and surrounded by strong women. The lesson I absorbed was simple: different therefore equal. When, as a young man working for a UK government quango, I was invited to attend a residential course at Laurieston Hall near the Scottish border on sexism and male attitudes, I approached it with confidence. I already regarded myself as broadly committed to equality.

The experience was intense and unsettling in the best possible sense. I discovered that not every radical woman stood on the political left. Not everyone on the left fully understood or acknowledged the realities of inequality. Most importantly, I discovered that I was not free of assumptions myself. I too could display prejudice through habits of speech, thought and conduct that I had scarcely noticed.

That realisation has stayed with me.

Only a year or two before, in 1976, the title Ms had begun to gain official recognition within the UK's House of Commons. Forms of address were live topics. Language itself was becoming part of the discussion.

After Laurieston, I resolved to write s/he. It was never an elegant solution, but it seemed preferable to the supposedly universal he that dominated much published writing at the time. During my freelance years I often alternated she and he throughout a piece. Editors were rarely enthusiastic and many restored the familiar masculine form. Some, however, would tolerate an article that consistently used she.

Eventually I migrated to they. For two or three decades that seemed a satisfactory answer. It allowed me to refer to a person occupying a role without implying that the role naturally belonged to a man or a woman. One also made occasional appearances, though its formality sometimes sat uneasily with my preference for a more conversational style.

But language does not stand still.

Over the past two decades, they has acquired an additional significance through its adoption by many people who prefer it as their personal pronoun. What began in particular communities has become increasingly visible throughout society. As a result, I find myself reflecting once again on my own use of language.

I briefly returned to s/he, but found it awkward. It interrupts both reading and writing. The solution I am currently considering is simpler: to alternate she, he and they within a piece, allowing each to stand naturally and unapologetically.

The intention is not linguistic innovation for its own sake. Nor is it a claim that I have found the perfect answer. It is merely a small reminder to myself and perhaps to my readers that any role, occupation, responsibility or task may be undertaken by a person of any gender.

If, in one sentence, she must undertake the task, in the next perhaps he must undertake it, and in the next they must undertake it.

The point is not the pronoun.

The point is the assumption that lies behind it.

Addendum

To Write Around The Pronoun

I began by asking which pronoun should I use? I end by asking what assumption made me think I needed to make that choice?

I'm realizing that is much more interesting than a style-guide answer.

And it gives me back to a technique I have always used, and a possible fourth position beyond s/he, alternating pronouns and singular they: sometimes the elegant solution is to write around the pronoun altogether.

There is a nice essayistic irony in that. My original ethical intervention was to make the hidden assumption visible. The more successful contemporary solution may be to make the assumption disappear without having to announce that it has disappeared.

That, I think is a genuinely elegant development of the problem I have been carrying since Laurieston.

And I rather like that the note remains unresolved. I will not rush to decide that alternating she, he and they is the answer. It may be more interesting if the notebook records the experiment; because the experiment itself is part of the history of my thinking about language.

David Marshall Skerries

elemental

A cloud Lifted and then burned away By the sun

A seashore Eroded and washed By the tide

A river Carved and recarved By the mighty flow

A heart Forged and shaped By the heat of love

We become what The forces of Nature make us

This begs the question: What then, Shapes our faith?

---

#poetry #museum #orbit #gravity

---

2024-10-19 16:31:29

Helpful to know:

I will be in Naarm/Melbourne by the end of this month.

Brisbane summer can burn in hell. Which I think it will judging by whatever this early spring weather is doing.

bare branches

Before dawn’s whisper, I rise— A navy sky not yet ready to sail. A body still heavy with sleep and confusion.

Then, suddenly, the road Is humming an old hymn Empty twilight nibbling Headlights in the fog.

A mind hitting on the Black fuel of morning While silent prayers Drift up to the unseen.

Glass eyes and smiles— Because he knows what waits: A day of light and truth, Smiles and hugs and love.

He calls them brother and sister Like they are lost family, Because they are. Lost in ways they don't even know.

Joy is the hilight, even as The soul knows it drifts Further from shore Than its ever been.

Faces of happiness fair winds One lost in doldrums Prays bring him home.

Or at least in the Right direction.

A Program begins, Lubricating the soul. Eyes glass again and a chest Feels tight with missed joy.

Every synapse is suddenly Alive with memory and desire And a longing to be one thing: Good.

HE is here, there is no doubt. After all, 'wherever One or two of you Is gathered together'.

And that is enough, Even though so many Are missing— So many.

One or all, the break Is no less real. Prayers and prayers And prayers

Because what else Can a lost and Broken soul Offer?

But to ask for help.

Ache and pray. It comes and Is part Of Worship

For what Father Does not wish to Know the failings Of a child.

Not to punish, But to salve And sooth And help.

Like light into A window, Spirit pours Into this soul.

And out come whispers of thanks. For truth. For hope.

For the days to come And their morrows To bring every loving One back to this place.

Of peace. Satisfaction.

And joy.

I was again depressed today. It was pretty difficult and I actually broke down crying this morning. I had a dream about E, It was like a book or something like that that she had mailed me and it contained letters giving updates about her life. I didn’t really get a chance to read it, but it was just like opening up that grief again. I still remember what it was like to wake up and every single day be consumed by that grief, going and sitting as far as I could from my work in a parking lot and just breaking down crying. And I thought about how there’s a good chance she doesn’t think about me anymore, because she now has a different partner. And I tell myself that that is not necessarily healthy because given her track record, typically she would jump from relationship to relationship. And I think the issue with this is you the surface level problem and you eventually want to just take the easy way out and get away from having to face that grief and loss. It’s way easier to just replace it with something else and I don’t blame her for it or anything like that. But I think if nothing else there is value and virtue to sitting with this pain and discomfort rather than being unable to tolerate it. And I think the part that really hurts me is not her specifically, but losing someone that I love so much. And it’s all of the small little benign things that become so much more brutal when it’s codependency. It also doesn’t help that I see her name almost everywhere.

I watched Disclosure Day tonight. I have multiple thoughts on it. For the most part, I think it was done well. I do wish the raindrop styled crafts had the extensive bays showing in the way that they should have. It was also never the Greys in those particular crafts in my dreams.

The abduction sequence hit somewhat close to home. My first orgasm (I didn't know that's what it was at the time.) was in a water tank while being experimented upon/observed. A school bully three or four years older than myself was there, too. He treated me very different after that dream. It was a terrifying dream. This was in the 80s.

I have done a lot of research over the years in an effort to understand both my experiences and my brain better. I've had them since early childhood memory. Of the multiple MUFON investigators I was interviewed by, I'm especially appreciative of one whose specific word-choice presented me with informative possibility I wasn't aware of at the time. Our brains are curious creatures.

I will say that the part with her childhood home had me tearing up. Again, similar but different reasons. I think they pulled in just enough to give a nod towards interviews, most likely while also keeping it differentiated. I do like the empathy map that they chose to take, but I would say that my personal dream experiences do not line up with that. At least not with the creatures that look like that. I do not enjoy dreaming of the Greys, and never have since childhood. In my dreams, they are some of the coldest, experimental, non-empathetic creatures I have ever experienced. I would say they are everything that scientists of today who dissect and experiment on animals wish they could be. They are definitely not the empathetic ones. That part of the film does disturb me.

That is my thoughts. It is just a movie after all. What an intriguing storyline to try and showcase empathy. I do appreciate certain elements of the movie. Tiny nods that might go unnoticed, kind of like ET being a plant. I really like that aspect. I need to watch it again as an adult. The vast majority of humans deeply underestimate the intelligence, empathy, consciousness, and communicative skills of plants just on our own planet. Kind of like how we underestimate everything other than ourselves, and have a tendency to overestimate humans.

Gotta love ego.

© 2026 AnOublietteofThought. All rights reserved.

Almost there!

All 25 pages

First am: to the printer!

10.

Le train nous mena jusqu’à Nantes, terminus de l’exil. Cette ville grise, pleine de ruines encore, sous une lumière poussiéreuse ne me plut pas. Le trajet de la gare au centre me sembla une éternité. Je boitais en traînant ma petite valise. Sans doute, je devais pleurnicher. Certainement on me rabroua, j’étais décidément capricieux, insupportable, pour ces gens qui n’avaient pratiquement jamais porté un regard sur moi depuis 4 ans que je passais avec les domestiques. On s’installa dans le grand appartement de cet immeuble négrier, premier étage, face aux ruines des bombardements. D’emblée je fus terrorisé par le couloir sombre, bordé d’armoires noires, immenses, qui desservait les différents pièces et au bout duquel s’ouvrait la porte vitrée de la cuisine avec son arrière-cuisine tout au fond, qui devint vite mon refuge. Un homme nous attendait là on me dit qu’il était mon grand-père. Grand, sec, déjà dégarni, cigarette aux lèvres.

Reactionary Review | Landmyn | dir: Nico Scheepers

---

Landmyn ebbs and seethes through a winter family holiday by the beach.

Siblings Colette, Johan and Lisa, one returned from a career in London (or Scotland) apparently making coffee, the other an up and coming playwright and director (plainly the autobiographical hinge of the film – you can tell this because the other characters accuse him of being pretentious) and their younger sister, who is rebelling, presumably as she has dyed her hair red. The three of them find themselves at a beach house somewhere in the Cape, paid for by the older sister, who breaks the news that their mother is coming as well. Portent sets in. Who pays for what is where the faultlines lie.

If I am making Landmyn sound a little heavy handed, that's because it is, but just a little. Yet, it succeeds despite that, through a series of subtle performances and shifts in tone, a sense of foreboding of the mundane. The spell of Landmyn is occasionally broken by some not so subtle, on the nose, intention signaling around intergenerational views on race and sexual agency, an aunt gets out of a taxi muttering, “Nigerians,” a very hammy exchange between the mother and son about interracial dating. In its loudest moments Landmyn overexplains what is so very evident in its whispers: this is a film about young people and old people not being able to understand each other's choices, and it is unflinching on that devastation. When it strips down to bareness, winter light, wind, the family on the cold beach in the distance while a mother contemplates her choices, Landmyn grabs your heart in its fist.

Anna-Mart van der Merwe as Annatjie holds the film together, the first act setting her up to be the landmine, she spends the rest of the film revealing that the landmine is buried deeper. The bothersome mother is a product of time, misunderstanding and grief, unmoored by circumstance. At the end Nicole Holm as her sister Beth, with a corresponding grief, sees what the children, without the benefit and decay of time, cannot: people are bound by their mutual misunderstandings. Landmyn is an open wound.

---

Reviews · → Benaaihilism