~hedy's blogroll - BlogFlock

Morning moon - James' Coffee Blog

2026-09-28T00:00:00.000Z

When I opened the window this morning, I was greeted by a white and grey disk, the grey blending into the light blue of the surrounding skies. Clear as Day, and full, the morning moon made me feel a little bit of awe. Wow. When I went to bed last night, the moonlight cast beams of silver into the house. I didn’t expect to see the moon again so soon, on this cool, still autumn morning where increasingly sun-soaked branches and leaves sway delicately. In front of where I sit I see the yellowing leaves of autumn atop a tall tree. That tree, by co-incidence and the wonder of human perception and imagination, almost appears to point to the white orb that sits stoic in the sky. The moon is so still it almost looks like it will never move again. But I know that, by tonight, the moon will have travelled far – like us all – and rise to create once again its peaceful silver glow.

To the west, the intensity of the sun rising across blue skies and through light white clouds increases, marking the beginning of a new day, the moon both bringing back memories of last eve and leaving me to ponder the beauty of the sun and moon together, decorating the sky on this new day.

I look back up to the aforementioned autumn branches and notice the moon has moved relative to said branches. We are forever in movement, discernible especially with a point of reference. The leaves helped me track the movement of the moon; the colours and temperatures help me track the progression of the season.

Sunday, September 27, 2026 - Baty.net

2026-09-27T13:05:10.000Z

Leeloo (2016)

I'm back on my Mac and all-in with Bear again right now. Working on an Alfred workflow for daily notes and logging. So refreshing!

Well, it looks like I may have a use for that "extra" Xteink X4 I bought: Snail — The screen you can read in the sun. (via Espresso Shots 9-27-26)

Some of you may be disappointed to hear it, but I vibe-coded a CMS for this blog.

✍️ Reply by email

Baty.net Editor - Baty.net

2026-09-27T12:18:47.000Z

Usually, when I grow tired of editing blog posts using Markdown files in Emacs or whatever, I create a new blog using Ghost or something like it. This time, I did something different.

Sometimes I just want a nice, easy, CMS for blogging. Emacs and a few lisp function are not that, so I asked Claude Code to make me a web app.

At 7:00 am I sent the following to Claude:

My blog at baty.net is managed locally using Eleventy. I would like to build a local web app that allows me to create new content. It should have "New Post", "New Journal", "New Page", and "New Note" options. The editor should handle Markdown, but it doesn't necessarily have to be "WYSIWYG" . There's should be a way to start the local server ("just serve") and deploy ("just deploy"). The blog is currently in ~/sites/baty.net.

I walked away and made breakfast.

At 7:27 am Claude said this:

And gave me this:

Screenshot of my new app

I used it to write a test post, and it worked, first try. The app needed no edits. I later added a few niceties, but all-in this first version took less than an hour to build and I'm using it to write this post.

✍️ Reply by email

Neil Peart: No One's Disciple ★★★★★ - Baty.net

2026-09-27T11:28:39.000Z

Such an amazing man and story. I've seen Rush three times: 1980, 1982, and 2012. They're my favorite.

✍️ Reply by email

Sunset - James' Coffee Blog

2026-09-27T00:00:00.000Z

Glistening over the hills in the immediate distance, the rainbow made me first pause for breath, then pause for thought.This is the first time in months I have seen a rainbow. I am looking at the spectrum of every visible colour. I followed the rainbow for as long as I could on my journey, appreciating every moment, including the time when it faded, for, even though the beam of colours were gone, the hills’ radiance began to capture and hold my attention.

The rain started with clouds, after which point rain fell, and then the skies cleared up. I like days where the sky clears up and the sun comes alive in the evenings. But then again I like the sun in the mornings, too, and during mid-day – every weather brings something new: a feeling, a sense of immediacy (“we should go out for a walk before the rain begins”), the possibility of moments.

The sun is now behind a dark grey cloud in the distance, suppressing much of the yellow glow. But I know there is a yellow glow for, on the periphery of the dark cloud, there are a few clouds turned yellow, glowing with an intensity that reminds me of the sun. Most of the sky is blue, too; the clouds that are in the near distance are moving quickly away with the wind that moves the trees like bristles move on a paint brush. The flower outside blows delicately, a flower that has had trouble with the warmer weather this year but nonetheless has continued to grow. Its resilience makes me smile, and think of a friend who told me how much they, too, see resilience in Nature.

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

The sunset this evening feels more muted, until I look in the other direction to see the peaceful horizon on which the trees below, being sufficiently far away, look like they are frozen in and with time; the few clouds in the air, bathed in a pink hue, move slowly; a family plays football in the streets in the remaining hour or two of daylight. I think about how distance relates to change: the closer you are to something, the more you can see it change.

Maybe that’s part of why I love spending so much time in the countryside. The closer I am to the rolling hills and the trees of home, the more that I can see trees grow and Nature change, just as, with time, I can see and feel myself grow and change. With every day there are new colours to be seen – new questions to be asked – and new songs to be played in new-to-me places, and new moments where there is the ever-existing opportunity to form new perspectives. And when the sun sets, I can exist and reflect under a blanket of dreamy moments and silver-dappled skies, with the colours of the sunset and the rainbow in my heart, and the grace of Night to keep me company until Day awakens once again.

Emacs live at the ‘Root Access’ stream on 2026-09-27 at 21:00 Europe/Athens - Protesilaos Stavrou: Master feed with all updates

2026-09-27T00:00:00.000Z

Tonight I will join the livestream that @linkarzu hosts together with Rumen and Ted. We will talk about Emacs. The discussion is open to the audience, so join us to write your questions and just hang out.

I am looking forward to this!

About ‘Root Access’

Root Access is a live conversation with Linkarzu, CEO members, and invited guests about tech, tools, workflows, and what they’re building. Guests can share their projects before we dive into the discussion. Everyone is welcome to watch live and join the chat; the full replay stays public.

Support @linkarzu

Comments on Dao, pattern, and the simple life - Protesilaos Stavrou: Master feed with all updates

2026-09-26T00:00:00.000Z

These are comments I wrote to a friend in the summer of 2022. They were reading Lao Zi’s Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching is an alternative spelling) at the time in the hope of making sense of their own life’s woes. This friend is of East Asian background, while I am Greek by blood and, as you may have noticed the more important part, by mindset.

These comments do not have any private information, nor do they mention anything specific about my friend. I just discovered them by doing something unrelated in the folder where my private notes are stored. So I decided to make this public.

At the time of that exchange I did not have a copy of Dao De Jing and was thus reading from a website whose links are provided below. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the translation, though this is not important to me, anyway. By quoting some existing work, I am simply finding a reason to rephrase what I think. I am not appealing to anybody’s authority, I am not hiding behind the genius of another even though I do recognise it, nor am I speaking in the name of some school of thought. I am neither its communicator nor its apologist.

You are dealing with Protesilaos. I am the dragon and you are in my world. The more you read, the more this becomes your world, so we might meet someday.

On pattern and patterns

From https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e9374217c57a304ef32b37fc1fa3883371076c9e.

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not Absolute Names.
The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the Mother of All Things.

Therefore:
Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion
In order to see the Secret of Life;
Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,
In order to see its manifest forms.
These two (the Secret and its manifestations)
Are (in their nature) the same;
They are given different names
When they become manifest.
They may both be called the Cosmic Mystery:
Reaching from the Mystery into the Deeper Mystery
Is the Gate to the Secret of All Life.

Below I provide my commentary by rephrasing and then explaining these statements.

[ORIGINAL]
The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not Absolute Names.

[PROTESILAOS]
The Being that can be described
is not the absolute Being;
The names (i.e. descriptions) that can be given
are not the absolute name.

An abstraction is the pattern common to presences. For example, “dog” is a pattern (or set thereof) present in American Pitbull Terrier, German Shepherd, Labrador Retriever. Each of those breed names is an abstraction in its own right, which is common in the particular specimens. The most abstract, then, is that which is present in everything.

As with the case of the “dog” abstraction, the instantiations of it exhibit modality. They not only exist; they exist in some way. Modality is the mode of being. Modality is about the descriptors—the differentiators or specifiers—of the given presence.

Abstractions of abstractions necessarily have increasingly abstract modality. If something can be described, if it has a mode of being, it has modality: a pattern that can be discerned. The most abstract is indescribable, strictly speaking, because it lacks modality. It cannot have modality because that renders it describable, which would mean that it instantiates some greater abstraction.

Consequently, when we use “Being” we are limited by our language. We give a name to something, thus describing it. What we really mean is “that which is most abstract”. We cannot avoid the contradiction of putting it into words yet asking the reader to grasp the concept of the indescribable: absolute Being.

What is in our head is still an approximation, even if we do not name it or speak of it. This is because grasping involves limiting. The most absolute is not comprehensible. Though we can approximate it, meaning that it does not have a pattern, but is pattern as such.

A note here on theology. Being is not some deity in the familiar sense. It (we use “it” conventionally) is not the almighty god, or however we think of gods. Being cannot be the absolute “good”, because that entails modality: it has a disposition of being good, meaning that there exists a non-good and, necessarily, a greater abstraction common to those two. If god or gods exist, if they are mighty and good, they still are presences: instantiations of Being, else pattern. We give them names, we describe them, and so on as patterns.

Same principle for what we might think of as duality: god and the world, mind and body, etc.. There necessarily exists a third magnitude that encompasses the two for them to consist as duality. In other words, there is something common to both of them. We then notice how the two is actually three, which constitute a one, which consists of two.

[ORIGINAL]
The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth;
The Named is the Mother of All Things.

[PROTESILAOS]
Being is the origin of all
Tropos is what "all" is

Continuing from the above, totality consists of presences. They are, which means that they partake of Being. But they are in some way, which is their modality. As such, I am introducing the Greek word for modality because I like it more: Tropos (found in words such as trope, tropical, psychotropic, entropy, …). All presences partake of Tropos, which makes them describable. They are all patterns, which have pattern as such in common.

[ORIGINAL]
Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion
In order to see the Secret of Life;
Oftentimes, one regards life with passion,
In order to see its manifest forms.
These two (the Secret and its manifestations)
Are (in their nature) the same;
They are given different names
When they become manifest.
They may both be called the Cosmic Mystery:
Reaching from the Mystery into the Deeper Mystery
Is the Gate to the Secret of All Life.

I think here there is no need to rephrase those statements. We start with a theme that I have mentioned in plenty of my writings, namely, humans are multifaceted. They have reason and emotions and they can be spiritual yet still have needs of their body. These facets do not have a standalone presence: they are part of the greater system which we call “human”. As such, a person cannot be purely rational or spiritual, emotional, etc. One can only ever be a bit of everything. Wisdom, then, consists in this recognition. So we sometimes strip away the passions to think of Being, yet at others we rely on the passions to conceive of Tropos in something that is close to us. The sage knows what the balance is.

For us, Being and Tropos are indistinguishable. Tropos does not have a standalone presence. It is a name we give for instantiations of Being. In a sense, Being does not have a standalone presence either, because it is the most abstract of all there is so it cannot be “alone” as there are no “others” at that level of abstraction.

The last two statements describe how we operate as humans, discerning patterns from the particular to arrive at abstractions, and then discerning patterns in the abstract structure that has revealed itself to grasp a greater abstraction. We thus proceed from particular knowledge to what is described here as the “Secret of All Life”: Being and Tropos, Being as such, pattern.

[ORIGINAL]
When the people of the Earth all know beauty as beauty,
There arises (the recognition of) ugliness.
When the people of the Earth all know the good as good,
There arises (the recognition of) evil.

Therefore:
Being and non-being interdepend in growth;
Difficult and easy interdepend in completion;
Long and short interdepend in contrast;
High and low interdepend in position;
Tones and voice interdepend in harmony;
Front and behind interdepend in company.

Therefore the Sage:
Manages affairs without action;
Preaches the doctrine without words;
All things take their rise, but he does not turn away from them;
He gives them life, but does not take possession of them;
He acts, but does not appropriate;

The part before the “Therefore the Sage” tells us how opposites are not truly different and how all is one. I explained my position by interpreting the Yin and Yang symbol: https://protesilaos.com/commentary/2022-07-15-yin-yang-interpretation/.

[ NOTE 2026-09-26: Remember that I was writing this in 2022, so links to my writings are from that time. I have since written hundreds of articles that expand on these and many other related themes. ]

Wisdom and indeterminacy

What I have not covered yet is this:

[ORIGINAL]
Therefore the Sage:
Manages affairs without action;
Preaches the doctrine without words;
All things take their rise, but he does not turn away from them;
He gives them life, but does not take possession of them;
He acts, but does not appropriate;

The sage can manage affairs without action because the sage does not have to act in order to figure out what needs to be done. The sage knows, by understanding Being and Tropos, that nothing has to be done. The sage is aware of the limits imposed upon our condition, of the fact that we cannot describe the indescribable, and also understands that the opposites are such only insofar as their modality is concerned. At a more abstract level, they are the same.

The key phrase here is “at a more abstract level”. When we claim that the opposites are indistinguishable from each other, we always refer to a given scope of application. At another scope of application, at the level where their modality is made manifest and is pertinent, we must treat them as distinct from each other. For example, in interpersonal affairs we express feelings for others. When we say, “you are my friend”, the “you” refers to an abstraction which omits the specifics of the given human organism (and all the specifics within the specifics at increasingly more micro levels). This is why I call it the “scope of application”, because it determines what our concepts apply to.

The sage, then, does not act to either create opposites or resolve them. Such is a matter of the scope of application. It is not action that creates those states of affairs, but the way of thinking.

Fundamentally, the sage “preaches the doctrine without words” because there is nothing to describe. When we use words, when we name things, including Being, we do it to communicate between ourselves. We are not sages. With philosophy, we want to be friends of wisdom: that is literally what “philosophy” means as philos (φίλος = friend) and sophia (σοφία = wisdom). And with wisdom we understand the doctrine which, somewhat anti-climactically, does not involve words. Our humanity bounds us to the domain of Tropos, where we necessarily have to use names and rely on language. We have to do this even for Being, which we describe paradoxically as indescribable. There is a terminus we cannot overcome. It is why the sage will not act to do something about it. Nothing can be done about the terminus.

The sage knows the metaphysical truth that no statement, no matter how clever, can ever express in full. I write “knows” because there is no other possibility that is conceivable: all is, and all that is has “is” in common.

As such, the sage is not triggered into action based on stimuli. The sage is tranquil, in a state of ataraxia, which literally means “non-disturbance” in Greek. Non-disturbance here has to do with the creation or resolution of opposites and the essence of the cosmos. The sage knows that everything that has Tropos is subject to transfiguration: it comes and goes. The sage, therefore, cannot become upset about the loss of something or, conversely, be elated by the gain of something else. We do not own anything, not even our self. I offered the latest explanation of this concept here: https://protesilaos.com/interpretations/2022-07-12-lhasa-bells/.

On not holding onto anything

We continue reading from this website: https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e9374217c57a304ef32b37fc1fa3883371076c9e/2.

[ORIGINAL]
Accomplishes, but claims no credit.
It is because he lays claim to no credit
That the credit cannot be taken away from him.

This passage is a continuation of my final remarks on the sage’s disposition from the previous section. Basically, the sage takes no credit because, strictly speaking, there is nothing to take, nothing to give, nothing to appropriate. It is not ours.

However, what I like about this passage is the human quality of the sage. Every moron has a huge ego and yearns for the praise of others. The sage, however, knows that there is nothing to be gained from the opinions of others, be they favourable or not. Opinions make no difference on the fact that we own nothing. Opinions cannot change Being and Tropos.

The poetic way that ancient Greeks would present this theme is by appealing to a god to tell them what to say. For example, Homer (author of Iliad and Odyssey), asks from the Muse (Muses are the goddesses of art, letters, and science; “muse” is found in “music” and “museum”, by the way) to sing for him. It is not that Homer or others hallucinated about some woman in the sky reciting poetry. It was a way to take away the egoism from the human: the person is just a messenger, a combiner and amplifier of existing data, who can take no real credit for the message being conveyed. The sage then, could be repeating the words of Athena, the goddess of wisdom, or Apollon, the god of harmony, and so on.

The specifics of the poetic statement do not matter. The idea is to not exalt the sage as a god. No. We must focus on wisdom as such, not the person who is wise. The person can help us befriend wisdom (be philosophers), but we ultimately want wisdom, not the sage. Hence, no-one takes credit. In a manner of speaking, nothing can be taken away from the sage because the sage, like everybody else, owns nothing. To continue with the poetic metaphor, it is the gods who decide such matters.

[ORIGINAL]
Exalt not the wise,
So that the people shall not scheme and contend;
Prize not rare objects,
So that the people shall not steal;
Shut out from site the things of desire,
So that the people's hearts shall not be disturbed.

Therefore in the government of the Sage:
He keeps empty their hearts
Makes full their bellies,
Discourages their ambitions,
Strengthens their frames;
So that the people may be innocent of knowledge and desires.
And the cunning ones shall not presume to interfere.
By action without deeds
May all live in peace.

Here we have the ethical, else political, continuation of what we covered before. Through wisdom, we learn that nothing is ours. We do not exalt the wise, because we know that wisdom is not theirs; we do not prize material possessions as obsessing over them makes us forget the lesson we learnt about non-ownership. In practice, these lessons can help those who are not sages approximate the state of ataraxia. They will not be tranquil in the way a sage is, but they can at least come to better terms with their existence.

I should note here that ethics and politics are indistinguishable in practice. We analyse them as two distinct fields, in the same way we do when we employ terms such as “the society” which is distinct in our mind from “the economy”. But when we consider things in vivo we cannot have politics without moral claims. We also cannot have standalone morality, as it pertains to affairs with an intersubjective scope. There is no standalone subject and there can be no private ethics, in the strict sense. The type of ethics which assumes a certain relationship between a person and some deity is still intersubjective: the person has no standalone presence.

[ORIGINAL]
Tao is a hollow vessel,
And its use is inexhaustible!
Fathomless!
Like the fountain head of all things,
Its sharp edges rounded off,
Its tangles untied,
Its light tempered,
Its turmoil submerged,
Yet dark like deep water it seems to remain.
I do not know whose Son it is,
An image of what existed before God.

This section describes what I have already explained about everything partaking of Being. Even if we learn about all things, Being will remain indescribable, “dark like deep water”. Otherwise, we identify Being indirectly in everything that has Tropos.

The final line in this passage is the same idea as what I already wrote about god or gods in the previous section: deities are presences with modality and, ipso facto, are not absolute.

[ORIGINAL]
Nature is unkind:
It treats the creation like sacrificial straw-dogs.
The Sage is unkind:
He treats the people like sacrificial straw-dogs.
How the universe is like a bellows!
Empty, yet it gives a supply that never fails;

I think we should not take “unkind” to mean evil, vengeful, and the like. It is a metaphorical, albeit blunt, way of saying that everything around us, including ourselves, transfigures regardless of how we feel about it. For me and you there is life and death, given our scope of application. In terms of the cosmos as a whole, there is no life and death: the cosmos always is. Presences constantly come and go. Though what is, is—and that cannot change.

This is why the universe is fundamentally “empty”, because its essence is Being, which is indescribable and lacking in Tropos. Notice the use of the term “fundamentally” and remember the scope of application. If we are talking about specific things, the universe is full. Again, this is a way of thinking, which is what the sage embodies as practice.

Presences in the universe are in a state of constant transfiguration, hence the supply that never fails. I should clarify though that this supply does not come from nothing, does not occur in nothing, and does not go towards or into nothing. If something is in any way related to nothing, there would then be an abstraction of nothingness, which would have to exist, and fundamentally all that exists is of Being. Therefore, if we say that something is coming from nothing, either we are wrong, or we use inaccurate language to describe how something partakes of Being. We can, however, as a figure of speech say that “it came out of nothing/nowhere” to mean that specifically it was not there before, though something else always was.

This constant supply does not increase the stock of presences, so to speak. Transfiguration can be described in plain terms as recycling. In modern Greek we use an expression which translates us “everything around us changes and all stay the same” (όλα γύρω αλλάζουνε κι όλα ίδια μένουν). For the cosmos as whole, nothing changes. What is, is. Again, we have to consider the scope of application. For specific levels of abstraction, change happens continuously.

Without understanding the scope of application, all this would appear nonsensical.

On matters of selfhood and multifacetedness

Reading from https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e9374217c57a304ef32b37fc1fa3883371076c9e/3.

[ORIGINAL]
The more it is worked, the more it brings forth.
By many words is wit exhausted.
Rather, therefore, hold to the core.

I believe the first sentence alludes to the intellect, though I would generalise its insight for everything that involves a degree of sophistication or expertise. Regardless of talent or natural ability, we get better at a given task by continuously practising it. Though hard work must be smart as well. There has to be a proper method involved.

The second and third sentences describe me well as an intellectual who is keen on action. I skip endless writings that do not get to the point—you know, when you start reading a book, are in page 50 and still do not understand what the subject matter is… There is an expression for this in English: “beating around the bush”. It does not work for me. I also dislike language that is designed to impress and/or confuse. Profundity is not a function of how fancy our words are, but whether we communicate clearly and accurately, with the understanding that “clearly and accurately” are subject to practicality.

At any rate, I consider this a preference, not a general truth. Perhaps then, tiring out one’s wits with many words that do not really say anything is not a problem unto itself but only with respect to its consequences. When the intellect is distracted by endless chatter they do not have the capacity to grasp abstractions and everything I already covered. This has knock-on effects on ethics/politics as those who do not proceed from wisdom will not behave properly, leading to undesirable states of affairs.

[ORIGINAL]
The Spirit of the Valley never dies.
It is called the Mystic Female.
The Door of the Mystic Female
Is the root of Heaven and Earth.
Continuously, continuously,
It seems to remain.
Draw upon it
And it serves you with ease.

I cannot understand this part. Maybe the “Female” here is Yin in its many meanings?

Personally, I am not fond of anthropomorphic (human-looking) metaphors as they distract us from what we should be focusing on. Especially when they invite us to think of a person’s physical attributes, man, woman, good looking, and so on. For example, Athena, the goddess of wisdom, is said to be ever-virgin. Sure, there is a metaphor there though its literal interpretation can easily distract us from noticing it. As such, it is a bad metaphor. If we try to interpret said virginity too much, we simply make the mistake of associating cultural norms with abstractions: we humanise the abstraction to the point where we forget it is not human—it is an abstraction.

To describe abstractions in human terms is understandable because it has didactic and mnemonic value. The key is to never lose sight of the metaphor. We want to employ figurative speech only to the extent that it facilitates our work to communicate the true meaning of the subject matter. For instance, I mentioned before how the Muse is the one who tells Homer what to write: it is okay to describe the muses as women, because it is easier to understand them that way, but the real lesson in Homer’s words is about non-ownership, as I pointed out before, not women whispering in your ear.

[ORIGINAL]
The universe is everlasting.
The reason the universe is everlasting
Is that it does not life for Self.
Therefore it can long endure.

This passage is more clear. The universe is everlasting as there is no other possibility. It is impossible for something to come from nothing, because nothing would then be something, with the potential to beget something else, i.e. cause and effect. An absolute nothing that is would then be the same as Being, but with a different name (with the proviso that Being is indescribable and the name we use is conventional). By “the same”, I mean it would be the abstraction that is most abstract and is thus identified in all the particulars, as I explained earlier.

[ORIGINAL]
Therefore the Sage puts himself last,
And finds himself in the foremost place;
Regards his body as accidental,
And his body is thereby preserved.
Is it not because he does not live for Self
That his Self is realized?

This is another take on the topic of non-ownership. The sage understands that the body is not theirs. As I have written before, nothing is ours, not even our self. The sage knows this and thus refrains from clinging on to the impression that the body is their own.

The allusion to preservation here is either an issue with translation or an inconsistency in the original text. I cannot see how the sage’s body is preservable, given cosmic transfiguration, and I cannot fathom how the sage’s knowledge of non-ownership has any impact on this matter. As such, I register my disagreement with the author or the translator: the preservation of a body in its particular instantiation does not happen. It does not even happen second-by-second, if you think of its constituents coming and going.

In technical terms, we have to consider what “preservation” would even entail. Science tells us that the body is not singular. It is a system of systems, each of which has different life cycles (e.g. cells live and die at a different rate than we do). Further, the body hosts benign microorganisms which also have a life of their own. If we were to reproduce the body, would we be reproducing all those then in their exact configurations? And which snapshot should we pick that is the true representative sample of this body?

But wait, because it does not stop there. The body does not have a standalone presence. It exists within an environment: it is influenced and determined by the environment. Gravity, for example, governs the length of the bones, how fluids flow and organs work, and the like. We know it because astronauts suffer the consequences of a different level of gravity than the Earth’s. So to preserve or replicate the body we need to also do the same for its environment. By extension, we must continue with the environment of the environment until we eventually have to reproduce the entire cosmos.

Again, I disagree with the notion of “preserve” if that was the intended meaning. If something is lost in translation, I am happy to revise this point.

The last two sentences where the question is raised are fecund. What they tell is that the sage has a clear perspective: they do not pursue wrong objectives, such as fame and flattery. As such, the sage is honest which allows their self to be realised: the signal in the noise, if you will.

Though I personally hold that there is no true self. The self always is a subjective narrative and subjectivity necessarily is intersubjectvity due to the fact that human does not—and cannot—have a standalone presence. While I agree that honesty is the right perspective, I do not think that a true self will ever be revealed as a constant, regardless of how sincere one is. Selfhood is circumstantial. It is informed, framed, influenced, conditioned, or otherwise determined by factors that are not limited to it. Whatever its state, it is specific to the constitution of the case. And, remember the notion of “snapshots”: if it is changing, then the true self would necessarily only be the common in the multitude of all snapshots, which is no longer a particular snapshot in the same way that “dog” is an abstraction without too many details so it applies to all specimens but “this specific dog” is a given specimen.

One can be “true” in the sense of not being pretentious, not following the fashions just to fit in, not providing assent to false views simply because they find currency in their milieu, and so on. Still, this kind of truth is another way of expressing honesty; honesty to the best of our abilities in the given situation, which still happens within the overarching constraints of being affected by factors outside our control. Honesty is a disposition, not a perfect state. We want to be honest, but we cannot be non-human through honesty; non-human in the sense of transcending the human condition of messiness.

If anything, the sage would be aware of this relativity and would come to the conclusion that one must not take themselves too seriously. By that I mean that the sage will acknowledge their humanity: the fact that its nature is influenced and determined by factors external to it; the fact that the self is not truly in control of all that is happening to it; the fact that the self is not immutable; the fact that the sage is all too human.

Even the wisest of the wise will not be wisdom incarnate, because wisdom is an abstraction while that which is incarnate has a Tropos that is not limited to wisdom. Remember what I wrote about the multifacetedness of the human condition: intellect, passions, body, spirit, etc. Human is a bit of everything, without exceptions.

Wisdom, then, consists in finding a practical (i.e. imperfect and case-specific) balance between all the facets of the human condition. One cannot be singularly intellectual. One must show emotion when the situation calls for it and one must treat the body with care. This is not mere instruction. We know from everyday experience how, for example, a tired body makes it impossible to concentrate and thus think about something profound. We know that a disturbed emotional state either is caused by or causes effects on the body which lead to a vicious cycle, again affecting how we think of things. Put simply, health is a balance between all the facets; a balance that is sustainable over the long-term (“long-term” in human years, meaning that we do not change from one week to the next or something along those lines). And health is catalytic in how selfhood is conceived. Again, the self is not “true” in some decontextualised sense. By “decontextualised” I mean standalone, as in not accounting for the factors of the case that contribute to its presence.

[ORIGINAL]
The best of men is like water;
Water benefits all things
And does not compete with them.
It dwells in (the lowly) places that all disdain -
Wherein it comes near to the Tao.
In his dwelling, (the Sage) loves the (lowly) earth;
In his heart, he loves what is profound;
In his relations with others, he loves kindness;
In his words, he loves sincerity;
In government, he loves peace;
In business affairs, he loves ability;
In his actions, he loves choosing the right time.
It is because he does not contend
That he is without reproach.

I think this passage is clear and does not require any further commentary, given what I have already expounded on.

Continuing with what I was explaining above, the sage remains a human. We use “the sage” in these notes a lot, though we do not mean to exalt it to some divine status. It is why I prefer the term “philosopher”, which means friend of wisdom. It speaks of an attitude rather than an attribute and in so doing it recognises the imperfection of the human condition. I am a philosopher because I want to live in accordance with wisdom, though because of my humanity I may have a mistaken view of what wisdom is, I may make the wrong choices, and so on.

The sage. then, is an ideal for us to communicate certain principles. We should not treat wise people as infallible—they are not. Nor should we trivialise their wisdom, dimissing them as “you are just human like me”, because that leaves out too many important details.

Avoiding exaggerations

Reading from: https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e9374217c57a304ef32b37fc1fa3883371076c9e/4.

[ORIGINAL]
Stretch (a bow) to the very full,
And you will wish you had stopped in time.
Temper a (sword-edge) to its very sharpest,
And the edge will not last long.
When gold and jade fill your hall,
You will not be able to keep them safe.
To be proud with wealth and honor
Is to sow seeds of one's own downfall.
Retire when your work is done,
Such is Heaven's way.

What we learn from this passage is to conduct ourselves in moderation. When something goes to an extreme, it no longer has a positive effect on us. The way I describe this principle is by remarking that the difference between remedy and poison is one of degree. A pill will address the headache. A bottle of pills will kill you.

Everything must be done in moderation, including philosophy. Remember, once again, the multifaceted nature of humanity. If we spend all day philosophising, we will not have enough time to care for the body, or we might miss emotionally fulfilling experiences. That would ultimately be to our detriment. If we ignore the body, it will become unhealthy, and that will undermine our ability to philosophise. If we neglect emotions, we will turn too rationalistic and lose the sensitivity we have for what others can bring to our life. Without emotion, we also forgo the nuance in experiences such as the observation of the sunset or the admiration of a full moon. That sense of joy and awe belongs to our emotional facet. Besides, is it not exciting to study? Excitement is an emotion.

We then want to find the virtuous middle ground in our life. This is not an exact measurement that is true for all people. It is a disposition, a way of living. Our intention is to avoid exaggerations and learn to trust in our own devices, while keeping an open mind for what others may have to say. If we are working all day, our body tells us to stop. Perhaps we should work half as much. If we are getting too excited, maybe we are developing an addiction for that exhilarating experience. Can we then detach ourselves from it? Are we really in control past that moment? You get the idea.

In the Greek tradition the concept of a moderate life is developed in large part through artistic representation. A human who would go to the extremes is said to commit hubris (ύβρις). “Hubris” describes the peculiar brand of cockiness that leads us to defy the limits imposed on us by our nature.

Hubris is often framed in religious terms because those are easier to understand and remember, compared to the austere Delphic maxim “Nothing in excess” (μηδέν άγαν, which would more literally be “nothing led” or, more loosely, “nothing [to be led away] in deviation of the mean”). The gods place limits on humans and punish them if they go beyond them. The gist here is not that gods are micromanaging our lives and are actively trying to harm us. This is the poet’s way of saying that our nature limits us. We are not omnipotent.

We can reason about hubris without reference to gods. Belief in the gods is neither necessary nor relevant. For example, someone who drives a motorcycle at full speed on a wet road without wearing a helmet is committing hubris. If the vehicle loses traction, the driver is most probably dead. We can say that this person is going to anger Zeus, for example, but this is a mental shortcut to describing the wider phenomenon.

Hubris is a practical idea which encapsulates the insight that moderation is a central theme in our life.

[ORIGINAL]
In embracing the One with your soul,
Can you never forsake the Tao?
In controlling your vital force to achieve gentleness,
Can you become like the new-born child?
In cleansing and purifying your Mystic vision,
Can you strive after perfection?
In loving the people and governing the kingdom,
Can you rule without interference?
In opening and shutting the Gate of Heaven,
Can you play the part of the Female?
In comprehending all knowledge,
Can you renounce the mind?

In this part we read about the ideal state one is supposed to achieve on their path to wisdom. I noted above that even the sage is human, which basically means here that this idealism is not what I am looking for.

Sure, if we comprehend all knowledge we can renounce the mind as there will be nothing left for it to learn. Yes, if we make everyone a sage, we will not need to have politics because all people will just do the right thing. In other words, if we become gods we will not worry about human affairs. But we will not become gods, so this entire discussion is not going anywhere. And if we become gods, we will know what to do anyway—we will be gods! Why ask me now, in my all-too-human state, what I will do if/when I am not human anymore? I am still operating in human terms and my asnwer will be framed accordingly, however good I may be at grasping abstractions.

In matters of politics and life in general, I am a pragmatist. Not because I do not like the idea of paradise on earth, so to speak, but due to the fact that the human condition makes us imperfect. For as long as we have this modality, we must deal with it. There will be conflicts, there will be erroneous judgements. Not because we are inherently eristic (combative) or antagonistic, but by virtue of our limited knowledge—we are not omniscient, so one’s opinion will likely clash with another’s.

What we can improve is not the human condition per se, but our disposition. We can become more tolerant of other opinions, beliefs, cultures. We can remain dubitative and inquisitive while giving the other side the benefit of the doubt. We can learn to live with less and not seek to accumulate as much wealth as possible at the expense of others (“others” includes people but also all other forms of life on the planet and the planet as such). These and many others pertain to our conduct, which is influenced by our way of thinking.

Furthermore, our nature—and Tropos in general—yields diversity. We cannot expect everyone to be a sage. Just as we cannot turn every person into a painter, a nurse, an engineer, an elite athlete, and so on. Each individual has a unique set of skills. By letting them cultivate those skills we are better off collectively. Why? Because we can then learn more about the human condition. If everyone I meet is like me, I am not discovering something new: I develop tunnel vision, which makes me less wise by obscuring from my view the diversity of the world around me. But if one is a pianist, another a fashionista, a third an accountant, etc. I gain insight into perspectives and modes of expression I would otherwise be oblivious to. This makes me more aware of what is around me and conditions me to think that there may be more. Again, we are not omniscient and our diversity helps us broaden our horizons. We do it together, as societies, as cultures, and as a species.

This extends the critique I have for the exaltation of the sage and why I prefer the disposition of philosophy (as “friend of wisdom”). For instance, I want the musician to give me what I cannot produce myself—music—and ask from them to do it as best they can. One can learn the basics of philosophy, such as the practical comments I make, and be a better version of themselves in what they do.

Furthermore, this is why I stylistically prefer polytheism as a source for metaphors. It works with multifacetedness and diversity at the outset, even though, fundamentally, the many are one as I elaborated on earlier. With the metaphors polytheism gives me, I can tell how one is closer to Athena, the goddess of wisdom, another to Hephaestus, god of crafts, and so on. And each person can be many of those archetypes, such as by aspiring to wisdom while also practising some art. Same for phenomena, which can be summarised in the image of a deity, like Demetra for the Earth Mother we always depend on but instead of saying “I need food, water, a healthy environment, etc.” I just say “I have Demetra by my side” or something along those lines. The many gods/archetypes, just like the many talents of humans and the multitude of phenomena, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They all partake of pattern.

[ORIGINAL]
Thirty spokes unite around the nave;
From their not-being (loss of their individuality)
Arises the utility of the wheel.
Mold clay into a vessel;
From its not-being (in the vessel's hollow)
Arises the utility of the vessel.
Cut out doors and windows in the house (-wall),
From their not-being (empty space) arises the utility
of the house.
Therefore by the existence of things we profit.
And by the non-existence of things we are served.

This is an interesting section. It basically tells us that we do not always need something to be there for us to benefit from it. Sometimes absence is better than presence. This is like the “less is more” we often hear about, which I consider a valuable rule of thumb.

Notice the “rule of thumb”. This is not a one-size-fits-all directive. We need to consider the specifics of the case to determine if presence or absence is necessary. Again, we need the notion of the “constitution of the case”. Without knowing the factors in their interplay, we cannot apply the rule reliably. Without knowledge of the case, we are likely to commit an error in judgement.

This passage can also be read in light of what I discussed above on the matter of hubris and avoiding exaggerations. No need to repeat it here.

A final point on “less is more” from my experience with designing colour schemes, themes, and a typeface. In any given context, if everything is emphasised nothing will stand out: the emphasis of one cancels out the emphasis of the other. In such a scenario, the most emphatic is that which has no emphasis, because it stands out through the absence of that attribute. Similarly, to emphasise the emphasis is to exaggerate, to burden the user with needless extras. We can think of those as having more of something, even though it is not needed. And, as with the difference between remedy and poison, having too much of something is deleterious.

Austerity and distractions

Continuing from: https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e9374217c57a304ef32b37fc1fa3883371076c9e/5.

[ORIGINAL]
The five colors blind the eyes of man;
The five musical notes deafen the ears of man;
The five flavors dull the taste of man;
Horse-racing, hunting and chasing madden the minds of man;
Rare, valuable goods keep their owners awake at night.
Therefore the Sage:
Provides for the belly and not the eye.
Hence, he rejects the one and accepts the other.

I think this section is a continuation of what I covered in the previous section about doing things in moderation. The wise approach is to get enough to sustain ourselves, but not more that we grow addicted to it.

All the extreme experiences evoke strong reactions, which affect our behaviour. Consider a favourite dish. If it is too delicious, we cannot stop thinking about it. We yearn for the moment when it is time to eat it. It keeps us busy and thus detracts from other matters. Same principle for everything we become so deeply invested in that it takes over our whole life.

While food may be used figuratively in the original text, I personally do have an explicitly austere approach on the matter (and “austerity” is an accurate descriptor of my life and what I represent). It comes down to simplicity. What we eat must be bland. Not too oily, not too salty, not too spicy, not too sweet, etc. Basic ingredients and generic techniques (e.g. only boil vegetables if necessary). Boring and uneventful food keeps us healthy without distracting us from other activities. Why? Because it is boring and we do not want to think about it any further. Whereas delicious food keeps calling for our attention.

Same principle for music. If we listen to loud songs all day, silence will disturb us. Meditation will be troublesome. Quietude will feel eerie. There is a time for art and a time for philosophy; a time for fun and a time for contemplation. We must slow things down and let the moment have our undivided attention.

In short, all thrilling experiences have to be kept in check as they are the most likely to lead us astray, far away from a moderate lifestyle.

[ORIGINAL]
"Favor and disgrace cause one dismay;
What we value and what we fear are within our Self."
What does this mean:
"Favor and disgrace cause one dismay?"
Those who receive a favor from above
Are dismayed when they receive it,
And dismayed when they lose it.
What does this mean:
"What we value and what we fear are within our Self?"
We have fears because we have a self.
When we do not regard that self as self,
What have we to fear?
Therefore he who values the world as his self
May then be entrusted with the government of the world;
And he who loves the world as his self -
The world may then be entrusted to his care.

I believe this passage is another take on the theme of ownership. If we cling on to our self, if we think that what we have is too precious and nothing should ever change it or take it away from us, then we dread losing it. We fear as we know deep down that it is not truly ours to begin with. That which we consider precious makes us its servant: we do everything in our power to keep it. In this sense, it is not having a self that is the problem, but the clinginess associated with this phenomenon.

Insofar as selfhood is concerned, the feeling of preciousness develops into what I call the “private cult of personality”. We take our self too seriously, we value our self too much. This cult forces us into a mode of conduct where everything we do is biased in favour of our glorified personality. Instead of remaining open to new possibilities, we delineate a comfort zone and make it our habitat. It is not truly comfortable though. It merely helps sustain the illusion that our prized self will remain constant.

We then have the “therefore” part of the origina text to contend with. The salient point is that one who is fearless, in the way I just described of not being afraid to lose their self, is the best candidate to not act out of prejudice and is thus the best option to consider the propriety of a given act. However, such a person does not necessarily have what it takes to govern the world. If one has neglected parts of their humanity, if they have not experienced the diversity of humankind, they may suffer from tunnel vision and thus lack perspective on what the needs of the people are.

More broadly, I am sceptical of tiny minorities ruling over everybody else: they are not omniscient and cannot possibly design a one-size-fits-all policy while respecting the underlying diversity. I am especially sceptical if such minority is framed as an intelligentsia, because the average intellectual is a person that has book smart but no street smart. In other words, they have not experienced the multitude of the world and have a very distorted view of how things are.

While I get the point that in ideal terms only the incorruptible sage can govern incorruptibly, I disagree on practical grounds. If we have gods among humans, they will be more competent than everybody else. Sure! Good luck finding a single one to do the job!

As with all matters, politics needs to be done in moderation. Not absolute control. Not absolute lawlessness (even anarchy needs law and some order, starting with a collective understanding of their basic moral code). Do not let the ideal give you a false sense of security though, as it is not what we get.

[ORIGINAL]
Looked at, but cannot be seen -
That is called the Invisible (yi).
Listened to, but cannot be heard -
That is called the Inaudible (hsi).
Grasped at, but cannot be touched -
That is called the Intangible (wei).
These three elude our inquiries
And hence blend and become One.
Not by its rising, is there light,

Perhaps the translation is not helping my cause here, though I feel this snippet is about method. If we employ the wrong instrument, we will reach false conclusions. The implication is that what we count as knowledge may itself be the product of an inappropriate method. Perhaps it is not absolutely wrong, though it still is not good enough or, to put it differently, remains flawed to a noticeable degree. In different terms, it is open to review.

This insight connects to the aforementioned private cult of personality. An incorrect method gives rise to a misplaced impression of self-importance. As we have unconditional faith in the method, we take its findings as the single source of truth which inevitably feeds into our cockiness; and cockiness begets hubris, as discussed earlier.

The role of the sage

Continuing from: https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e9374217c57a304ef32b37fc1fa3883371076c9e/6.

[ORIGINAL]
Nor by its sinking, is there darkness.
Unceasing, continuous,
It cannot be defined,
And reverts again to the realm of nothingness.
That is why it is called the Form of the Formless,
The Image of Nothingness.
That is why it is called the Elusive:
Meet it and you do not see its face;
Follow it and you do not see its back.

This passage is another comment on the Tao/Being. Paradoxes, such as following but not seeing its back, are used to convey the meaning I already covered in the opening section. No need to repeat it here.

As humans, our terminus is Tropos. We cannot escape it. Even in speaking of Being, we give it a name—“Being”—yet maintain that it is nameless. We assign an attribute to it, else a description, by holding that Being is “that which is most abstract” and “that which is not describable”. In other words, we give it Tropos while saying that it has none. We assign to it the mode of being the most abstract and/or the indescribable. There is no other way for us to communicate. The alternative is to remain silent. Though even then we grasp it in our mind through Tropos.

Note here that “nothingness” is not absolute. As I explained previously, Being, and everything predicated it on it as Tropos, is the only possibility. There can be no nothingness, strictly speaking.

[ORIGINAL]
The wise ones of old had subtle wisdom and depth of understanding,
So profound that they could not be understood.
And because they could not be understood,
Perforce must they be so described:
Cautious, like crossing a wintry stream,
Irresolute, like one fearing danger all around,
Grave, like one acting as guest,
Self-effacing, like ice beginning to melt,
Genuine, like a piece of undressed wood,
Open-minded, like a valley,
And mixing freely, like murky water.

While this part starts by alluding to the sages of old, I believe the real meaning is the paradoxical indescribable nature of the most profound. This continues the theme of Tao/Being. For humans though, who as humans necessarily have Tropos, it is always possible to describe and render intelligible that which they say.

The sage may be likened to an eagle: a bird that flies higher than all other birds. Yet the eagle can descend to the lower altitudes to meet the others. Because the sage is aware of non-ownership, as I explained in the previous sections, they have no reason to think that those heights are their exclusivity. The sage can help others to at least imagine what it is like to be up there.

Here allow me to introduce the concept of the “Promethean Ideal” that I have inferred based on the myth of Prometheus. This is a titan, basically a god, who brought knowhow to humanity. The “knowhow” is encapsulated in the myth as the art of using fire. Equipped with their newfound knowledge, humans could do more things than was ever possible before. Thanks to Prometheus’ gift, they could take the next step in becoming more sophisticated. The ideal then is for us to learn from Prometheus so that we always try to share knowhow and knowledge in general. We must try to help humanity become better: to be more god-like, so to speak. Though we know that people are imperfect and all knowledge available to them can be used malevolently. Prometheus understands this but still foresees a world where humanity moves from a primitive to a more advanced understanding of itself and the world at-large.

Why would we do that? Why not take advantage of knowhow to pursue our own ends? Because a god, who is a higher being, has shown us that through sharing we collectively improve our condition; a god has shown us not to worry about ownership: the knowhow of fire is not mine or yours, but is available to everybody.

I think the sage and generally the person who has a disposition of altruism is this Promethean figure in practice. They can give the rest of us what we lack and they can show us how to make best use of it by embodying it themselves. Eventually, we will learn and move closer to wisdom. And, as with Prometheus, this involves personal sacrifice which is about letting go of the precious self we think we can hold onto forever.

[ORIGINAL]
Who can find repose in a muddy world?
By lying still, it becomes clear.
Who can maintain his calm for long?
By activity, it comes back to life.
He who embraces this Tao
Guards against being over-full.
Because he guards against being over-full,
He is beyond wearing out and renewal.
Attain the utmost in Passivity,
Hold firm to the basis of Quietude.
The myriad things take shape and rise to activity,
But I watch them fall back to their repose.
Like vegetation that luxuriantly grows
But returns to the root (soil) from which it springs.
To return to the root is Repose;

To me this section starts with the recognition that the domain of Tropos is one of incessant change: transfiguration on a cosmic scale. Something comes, something goes, something deforms, something else forms. There is no creation from nothing or in nothing, and there is no transition to nothing. What is, is. Ever-present, ever-lasting. It is the mode of being that changes.

In this sense, the common in the multitude of this state of flux is motion or reform or transition. The very pattern of change is constant in itself: it remains change and never becomes non-change. By continuing with the pattern seeking, we identify such constants, which form an abstract structure with which we make sense of the cosmos.

The cosmos has “logos”, which is the Greek word for “rate”, “ratio”, “reason” (as reasonable and as a cause), and “speech”, else “language”. These concepts all describe the domain of Tropos: whatever happens has Logos built into it. It is immanent. Logos, then, is this “pattern as such” that I alluded to earlier, an alias for Being.

You may think that rate, ratio, causality are obvious. But what about language? Language is immanent as well. In its most basic form, language describes a feedback loop: something happens and something else occurs in response to it. It is binary. The concatenation of such bits, per computer science parlance, is what contributes to the interplay of factors in any given constitution of the case. We can think of a case as a network of communication channels which yields specific meanings, else forms and modality. It is how a system can have phenomena that are specific to its scope of application and not to the more particular domain of each of its factors in isolation: the given bits engender different meanings through their exact combinations or sequences.

Logos is constant then. We then realise that there is no difference between the two extremes of the immovable world that Parmenides talked about and the ever-changing one that Heraclitus described (based on the surviving fragments we have, anyway). The two sages were elaborating on different facets of a singular reality. They were simply operating at different scopes of application, which I am confident they understood all too well.

Couched in those terms, what the text above is telling us is that the sage can discern both (i) the transfigurable nature of things, such as by admitting to non-ownership, and the (ii) universal magnitudes.

For our everyday life, the insight is that we will stress out and become ineffective if we are afraid of losing what we have. We do not really have anything that is ours in an inalienable way. Circumstances can give us wealth and take it away from us. We may be healthy or sickly. Our conception of self depends on how our body works and what our environment is (points I have already explained in the previous sections). We escape from the fear of losing things when we admit that transfiguration is ceaseless. We then conduct ourselves in moderation, both for the so-called “good times” and the “bad” ones. It it thus possible to be tranquil, undisturbed by the fluctuations in the world, because we have seen beyond the transfigurable into the abstract structure—the constants—of the cosmos: Logos. Hence, with wisdom we are, in the words of the translated text, “beyond wearing out and renewal”.

On fearlessness and presence

Continuing from: https://www.wendangwang.com/doc/e9374217c57a304ef32b37fc1fa3883371076c9e/7.

[ORIGINAL]
It is called going back to one's Destiny.
Going back to one's Destiny is to find the Eternal Law.
To know the Eternal Law is Enlightenment.
And not to know the Eternal Law
Is to court disaster.
He who knows the Eternal Law is tolerant;
Being tolerant, he is impartial;
Being impartial, he is kingly;
Being kingly, he is in accord with Nature;
Being in accord with Nature, he is in accord with Tao;
Being in accord with Tao, he is eternal,
And his whole life is preserved from harm.

This is a direct continuation of what I explained about finding the universal in Logos. We are able to look beyond the particulars of incessant change as we discern the abstract structure in the world. We find enlightenment in the recognition that there are constants amid the cosmic transfiguration. Tropos is a constant, Logos is constant. We thus refrain from assigning disproportionate value to the ephemeral, to those items that undergo change. This makes us fearless, because we do not cling on to anything and, therefore, have no worry of losing something which never was truly ours anyway. The practical benefit is ataraxia, the state of tranquillity in which we do not get disturbed about either the addition or subtraction of presences from our life. We learn to live in the moment, not holding on to the past, not longing for the future. We are free from suffering; suffering caused by the wrong perspective.

Here I should comment on the point of living in accordance with nature. I agree with the salient point, though we must be careful with our biases. Sometimes we will have a dogmatic view of what is and what is not natural. We will be using “nature” as a pretext for—and justification of—our own prejudices. The key then, is to remain honest about our disposition. When we find that we are strongly attached to something, we need to remain mindful of non-ownership. When we fiercely disagree with another person, we ought to mutually take a step back in acknowledging the fact we are not omniscient. And so on. We do make mistakes and are inherently fallible. What saves us from ruin is the commitment to a balanced lifestyle. We avoid the extremes, we guard ourselves against hubris, and we proceed with a spirit of sincerity and compassion.

[ NOTE 2026-09-26: On 2025-03-18 I wrote about the Stoic harmony with nature which is relevant to the above paragraph. ]

Enlightenment in our day-to-day life is to be able to escape from the powerful grip of our ego. To recognise that the self is not genuinely ours and that we remain a presence in the transfigurable cosmos. We are, in simple terms, at our best when we are humble and our behaviour is not driven by insecurities.

[ORIGINAL]
Of the best rulers
The people (only) know that they exist;
The next best the love and praise;
The next they fear;
And the next they revile.
When they do not command the people's faith,
Some will lose faith in them,
And then they resort to oaths!
But (of the best) when their task is accomplished,
their work done,
The people all remark, "We have done it ourselves."

Maybe the translation is not helping me here, but I think this passage speaks about the lack of perspective. How in the absence of wisdom we find substitutes to value and how those lead us astray. It continues below, so I comment on both together:

[ORIGINAL]
On the decline of the great Tao,
The doctrine of "humanity" and "justice" arose.
When knowledge and cleverness appeared,
Great hypocrisy followed in its wake.
When the six relationships no longer lived at peace,
There was (praise of) "kind parents" and "filial sons."
When a country fell into chaos and misrule,
There was (praise of) "loyal ministers."

I think this part juxtaposes an ideal world with the one we have to argue how we are far from Tao/Being and how this state of affairs leads us to maintain the wrong view of things. To put it in plain terms, we move away from nature and we lose sense of the basic things in life.

Perhaps it is counter-productive to argue against notions such as humanity and justice, because as humans we cannot be apolitical. For as long as we have to manage interpersonal affairs, we will have politics; politics in the basic sense of a public sphere, else the presence of—and concern for—the commons.

By “apolitical”, I do not mean basic activities like not voting for a party or not reading the news. Those we can afford. But even when we do not participate in the political process, we live in an instituted reality. Our life is framed by legal-cultural arrangements. There are rules which define roles and roles delimit the set of expectations on what is and is not applicable or acceptable behaviour in the given context. There are many people who do not care about politics, yet their intersubjective experience is underpinned by politics. They are not apolitical beings operating in an apolitical context, strictly speaking.

Maybe then, we need a more practical example to realise how far we have deviated from nature. Consider how modern culture basically everywhere values material possessions to an extreme. Contrary to the insight of non-ownership, we have a dogma of ownership. We judge other people on the basis of how much they appear to have. The more, the better. Such is the principle. It is a value system where the actual person does not matter as a human being with talents and sensitivities. What counts is the appearance of affluence, the pretence of ownership. I write “pretence” because even the richest person owns nothing. Everything is alienable. So it is a pretence, a lie, a delusion, a shadow play at the social level.

People who only care about conforming with this hypocrisy have the wrong perspective. In other humans they only see facilitators or antagonists on the path to showing off. With so-called “social media”, even private affairs are commodified as a medium of exchange that grants one short-term validation. Validation of this sort is reduced to the shared belief that they are owning “stuff”. This “stuff” can be a car, a house, a fancy job title, the positive opinion of others, et cetera.

This society values everything that is hard and fast, big and loud. It all needs to be cranked up to the maximum. There is no nuance, no subtlety. Think about paintings, for example. I hear people remark on a naturalist landscape how it does not have “intense colours”. There is nothing wrong with more saturation per se. But if one is insensitive to more subtle hues, we already sense how they cannot appreciate the finer experiences in life: a sunset by the beach, birds chirping on the mountains, a walk in the forest…

When all we see in other people is a means to an end, we cannot possibly have a better view of non-human life forms. We treat them as lesser than us. Humanity views the planet as an expendable resource and is destroying it in the process. There are those who understand, but the vast majority are not willing to change their lifestyle even while preaching about its merits.

The point is that we lack perspective. We have a set of values that glorifies ownership: we thus do not recognise the cosmic truth of non-ownership. We believe we are better than other forms of life: we do not admit that we are just as transfigurable, just as interdependent and coexistent. We want everything to be extreme: we lose sight of the virtuous middle ground and commit hubris in the process. Our civilisation is an intricate superstructure built on top of misunderstandings about how things stand in the world.

[ORIGINAL]
Banish wisdom, discard knowledge,
And the people shall profit a hundredfold;
Banish "humanity," discard "justice,"

This is the conclusion which continues from the aforementioned. Again, I would not dwell on the concepts of “humanity” and “justice”. The gist is that we must remain open to the truth. Lies may give us immediate profit, but all of it is an illusion in the end.

The mode of truth-seeking leads us to the rejection of modern values. We will no longer seek validation through possessions. One does not need to be validated for being. We will stop obsessing about ownership and not judge ourselves on the basis of such a metric. Instead, we will remain tranquil and be freed from the burden of clinging on to stuff that can never be truly owned. In short, we will have a more balanced disposition which will prepare us to lead simpler and more peaceful lives.

As I noted before, not everyone will become a sage. Humans are diverse and each individual has a unique set of talents. An ideal state where we all live in ataraxia will not happen. We should at least aspire to our highest. Try to be more god-like in our disposition, more compassionate and understanding, more patient, more tolerant, and less egoistic. We will seek to be friends of wisdom, even though we understand it is not possible to ever become wisdom incarnate. In doing so, we will avoid distractions.

Autumn - James' Coffee Blog

2026-09-26T00:00:00.000Z

The sun danced with the clouds in a competition where both the clouds and the sun wins, for there is always light and cloud. The music was the melody of morning, a morning on which I saw the first frost lying on the quiet grass by the river, a few days after having seen the first cool evening fog. The seasons are changing.

My soundtrack this morning were songs as colourful as the autumn trees, music evoking memories, recognition, joy, and the necessity to dream – to move forward, to write the next word in the story. The sunlight painted the ever-changing fields, creating a morning of blue and grey and gold and silver, as if every colour were a track in the songs to which I was listening, and the songs to which I listen. Music and colour feel like a guide.

After breakfast and coffee, I set out on a walk, starting on a path with which I have grown increasingly familiar over the past few weeks, and then wandering a little bit, letting my feet take me where they wanted to go.

I ventured from the cold grasses and the tall parallel rows of trees bathed in an ebbing, cool, distant, golden glow, through the bustle of the city centre, to the quiet concrete streets where workmen are fashioning stairs and few people wander, seeing and hearing the many colours and paces of the city.

I think about the joy of having a direction, of having a map in my mind because I have walked on a path many times before. And I think about the joy of refining my map, knowing that while I have a general sense of direction, more practice will help me navigate the unfamiliar. I felt proud that I could take a detour and still get to where I wanted to go, consulting a map only at the last minute when, to my delight, my destination was just around the corner.

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

The more often I walk, the more comfortable I feel walking longer distances. The more often I walk and take some time to rest, the more stories I hear. Pausing in the park for a break, I heard someone sharing the story of the clock at the Balmoral Hotel, which runs a few minutes fast to help keep people on time. The Balmoral clock is only correct on New Year’s Eve, when it is intentionally set to the correct time so that the clock can ring in the new year with the rest of the city.

A colourful red and black butterfly soundlessly flutters through the autumn park that, on such a sunny day, still feels like it is holding onto summer.

The mid-days are warm, bookmarked by the cooler mornings and nights that signify the burgeoning season in which the sky and the trees take on new colours, and in which new stories are waiting to be written.

New music morning - James' Coffee Blog

2026-09-25T00:00:00.000Z

7:00. Wake up. I recall. Taylor Swift’s new music is out today. I proceed to listen to all four new songs while still in bed, looking up to the ceiling and the sky and toward my cool, warm pillow, eager to do nothing else but appreciate the music.

I am sure there will be more to analyse in the songs in the coming hours and days when I have listened to – and read about them – more, but what mattered most to me this morning was spending time with the music. I listened to the new songs once, then got up and made breakfast, listening again while I did. Each song – Patient Zero, Cleveland!, Pink Clouding, and Babylon – is terrific. I have listened to them many more times since.

The opening notes of Patient Zero make me think vaguely that I am somewhere out in the Scottish countryside, about to hear country music, until the first notes come in and the song becomes something new. Cleveland! makes me want to dance. Pink Clouding makes me wonder. What does that mean? The magenta sunrise.

And then there’s Babylon, in which there is one lyric that reminds me of one of the attributes of Swift’s music I appreciate most: her lyricism. On a months-long journey reflecting on what home means to me – one defined by writing and conversations and spending time in different anchors of home – the lyrics “The self-harm of never being where you are.” stood out, coming days after I wrote “Here is where I want to be”, at least right now, being with the red trees of autumn and dreaming of the lavender skies of winter.

When I looked at the Taylor Swift Sub-Reddit this morning, I saw someone had already made a mashup between Patient Zero and The Black Dog, the latter from The Tortured Poets Department. I immediately understood the impulse to go to a musical instrument after hearing a new song, seeing if you can play along with the melody. I too felt the urge to go to my piano and start playing. I love how music can connect us in ways where no words need to be said – where we do the same thing – listen, play, chat, analyse – because we want to spend time with and feel the music.

Here is where I want to be mashup between Patient Zero and The Black Dog

Emacs: find a file in the ‘denote-directory’ - Protesilaos Stavrou: Master feed with all updates

2026-09-25T00:00:00.000Z

Because Denote files are standard files, we do not provide the equivalent of a find-file command to directly open a file in the denote-directory. Though users may still want to have that functionality, which is easy to implement with what core Denote already provides:

(defun my-denote-find-file ()
  "Open a file in the variable `denote-directory'."
  (declare (interactive-only t))
  (interactive)
  (when-let* ((file (denote-file-prompt)))
    (find-file file)))

This can be extended to include commands that only match specific file types or regular expressions in general. For example, here is how we prompt only for files that include .pdf in their name and also modify the minibuffer prompt to indicate what we are doing:

(defun my-denote-find-file-pdf ()
  "Prompt for FILE in the variable `denote-directory' and open it."
  (declare (interactive-only t))
  (interactive)
  (when-let* ((file (denote-file-prompt "\\.pdf" "Prompt for PDF file")))
    (find-file file)))

To take it a step further, we can define a keymap which we may then bind to a prefix key. This way we can access all the “Denote find file” commands we have defined for ourselves:

;; Define the keymap.  Notice the symbol of :prefix, which is used in
;; the `define-key' below.
(defvar-keymap my-denote-find-file-map
  :doc "Commands to find a file in the variable `denote-directory'."
  :prefix 'my-denote-find
  "f" #'my-denote-find-file
  "p" #'my-denote-find-file-pdf)

;; Pick a suitable prefix key.  Here we use C-c f.  So
;; `my-denote-find-file' is this: C-c f f.
(define-key global-map (kbd "C-c f") 'my-denote-find)

Putting it all together:

;; Use this as a template to define as many commands as you need, like
;; with `my-denote-find-file-pdf'.
(defun my-denote-find-file ()
  "Open a file in the variable `denote-directory'."
  (declare (interactive-only t))
  (interactive)
  (when-let* ((file (denote-file-prompt)))
    (find-file file)))

(defun my-denote-find-file-pdf ()
  "Prompt for FILE in the variable `denote-directory' and open it."
  (declare (interactive-only t))
  (interactive)
  (when-let* ((file (denote-file-prompt "\\.pdf" "Find PDF file")))
    (find-file file)))

;; Define the keymap.  Notice the symbol of :prefix, which is used in
;; the `define-key' below.
(defvar-keymap my-denote-find-file-map
  :doc "Commands to find a file in the variable `denote-directory'."
  :prefix 'my-denote-find
  "f" #'my-denote-find-file
  "p" #'my-denote-find-file-pdf)

;; Pick a suitable prefix key.  Here we use C-c f.  So
;; `my-denote-find-file' is this: C-c f f.
(define-key global-map (kbd "C-c f") 'my-denote-find)

Enjoy!

Thursday, September 24, 2026 - Baty.net

2026-09-24T14:49:34.000Z

Leeloo watching the world go by (2016)

✍️ Reply by email

Comment on tutelary figures - Protesilaos Stavrou: Master feed with all updates

2026-09-24T00:00:00.000Z

I have written about the importance of tutelary figures in several articles. Although it is clear from the context what I have in mind, I have not elaborated in a standalone piece. A tutelary figure is a person who watches over you while teaching you something that is valuable for life. Parents typically perform this function, as do teachers, coaches, and religious leaders, among others.

Every person does something we can learn from, including in the form of an example to avoid. Though those people are not explicitly out there trying to take care of you or, anyhow, contribute to your long-term wellness. They are just minding their own business and you learn by discerning the patterns therein. A tutelary figure is guided by benevolence. They want you to succeed. This means that they can be rough at times, if their position permits as much and the situation calls for it.

A mistake some people make is to think that benevolence is the attitude of accepting all missteps, of not defining boundaries, and of effectively claiming that all numbers win. Sometimes openendedness is the appropriate course of action. At others it does a disservice to those involved because it does not give them the impetus and framework they need to develop their capacities in ways that empower them to succeed.

It can be disastrous to give someone exactly what they ask for, because people do not always know what will cause them irreparable damage. For example, giving too much freedom to a toddler is how that child will harm itself. You do not let a 2-year-old walk to the beach and go for a swim. It is not ready for that. Thus a parent who always answers affirmatively is not being responsible.

Strict control is another case that is characterised by irresponsibility, even if that is less obvious at the outset. Continuing with the example of parenting, the beach-going parent who never allows its child to learn how to swim is not giving enough space for personal growth. The overprotected child may thus turn into an insecure adult and/or entitled prick.

A tutelary figure understands that they are supposed to pass on the baton or, anyhow, that they will only remain relevant in some other capacity beyond what they were there for initially. Your parents will not be babying you for long, though they might be there to help you raise your own kids, and/or to keep you company. Teachers will expect you to leave school and go do some job, including one where you are a teacher yourself. They may still be your friends and chat with you about all sorts of issues. Your coach will give you all the tools you need to be able to do the task on your own. Then the coach can still be there as your peer. The religious leader will allow the members of the community to self-organise and still be present to share their experience, to provide encouragement, and to correct any irregularities.

There are people who do not need a lot of protection and others who benefit from closer control. People are diverse: one size does not fit all. A child, for example, may already have the responsibility of an adult at the age of 10, while another person will develop it in their 30s. The former is not necessarily better, because the 10-year-old still needs experience, which it will only get in a positive way if it is reminded that it still is a child. The latter case is not defective or anyhow wrong. It too makes poignant the need for tutelary figures.

Tutelary figures hold authority. This authority can be organic, as in the case of a family: the child starts out as a fully dependent, symbiotic organism, that gradually learns from the adults around it. Authority may also be ex officio, such as the teacher at school who has the power to punish students with extra homework when they misbehave. Though authority may also come from one’s recognition of excellence in another. If you ask someone for their opinion on some important matter, you are effectively acknowledging that they have the skills, knowledge, and experience to answer in a manner that is helpful. If done with regularity, that person has authority over you in this specific capacity.

Authority is an interpersonal phenomenon. It cannot stand on its own. The teacher has no power other than brute force if the student does not listen and if the institution does not grant them any remedial action. The relationship is thus broken. Consequently, authority and submission go together. One must submit to the other’s guidance, which is another way of saying that they agree to be handheld. Sometimes this happens regardless of one’s will, though it will typically be subject to their acquiescence or express want. For example, the baby has no choice in the matter, but other relationships do involve consent, like one wanting to train under a specific football coach during their free time.

Tutelary figures are involved in every stage of our life. If they are not, then we must be our own best guide and guardian. Otherwise we are lost and are in trouble. In effect, the tutelary figure is there to show us what is a benign option and what would be detrimental to our being. A person who falls into self-destructive habits, for example, essentially does not have someone in their life who can put them on the right path. The situation they are in sets them up for failure. Perhaps they are lonely and/or stressed and/or overworked. There will be a more descriptive explanation than merely “this person is bad”.

Authority and submission is how hierarchies take form. Societies need those to thrive. Individuals benefit from hierarchies at every stage of their life. In the absence of hierarchy one must be stable in their routines and clear in their thinking. Such is a rare case, however. The vast majority of individuals in the vast majority of cases benefits from guidance and control, which they can hopefully find in their social milieu.

LLM text written for you isn't your writing - Baty.net

2026-09-23T15:45:30.000Z

I Don’t Want to Read What You Didn’t Write

When you are the one who prompted the AI, the written output is often quite useful. But do not mistake this for effective writing.

I am so tired of reading LLM-generated text, especially when it was prompted by someone else.

✍️ Reply by email

Wednesday, September 23, 2026 - Baty.net

2026-09-23T09:54:15.000Z

Josie (2017)

The tension between writing things easily using a computer vs writing them in one of my lovely notebooks never subsides and it is crazy-making.

Maybe there could be a document format that displays the author's (human-written) text, but has a hidden AI-generated version or summary. Sort of like how "Alt" text works for images. I'm so tired of reading LLM output, but future readers (and machines) could benefit from the tedious, exhaustive details. Just keep it out of my way until then.

✍️ Reply by email

Emacs: sxhkdrc-mode version 1.3.0 - Protesilaos Stavrou: Master feed with all updates

2026-09-23T00:00:00.000Z

This is a major mode for editing sxhkdrc files. SXHKD is the Simple X Hot Key Daemon which is commonly used in minimalist desktop sessions on Xorg (I use it with bspwm, herbstluftwm, and i3wm). The sxhkdrc file configures key chords, binding them to commands. For the technicalities, read the man page sxhkd(1).

Package name (GNU ELPA): sxhkdrc-mode
Git repositories:
- GitHub: https://github.com/protesilaos/sxhkdrc-mode
- GitLab: https://gitlab.com/protesilaos/sxhkdrc-mode
Backronym: Such Xenotropic Hot Keys Demonstrate Robustness and Configurability … mode.

1.3.0 on 2026-09-23

This version makes quality-of-life refinements to an already stable package.

Fontification of key chord chains

Key chord chains are written with the semicolon (;) or colon (:) characters. The former refers to one-shot operations while the latter is for continuous ones that exit only with Escape.

The corresponding faces are sxhkdrc-mode-chain-one-off-separator and sxhkdrc-mode-chain-continuous-separator.

Support for all command prefixes

The previous version only covered the ; in front of a command. The prefixes @ and ~ are now covered as well. They are all using teh face sxhkdrc-mode-command-prefix, which supersedes the deprecated sxhkdrc-mode-command-async.

Continuation lines in commands are highlighted as well

This concerns the backslash character (\) at the end of a line. The applicable face is sxhkdrc-mode-continuation-line.

All modifiers are covered

The updated manpage of SXHKD, sxhkd(1), mentions all the modifiers that it supports. I have extended support for all of them in the order they appear in the manual.

Almost went back to my Mac - Baty.net

2026-09-22T20:58:38.000Z

I've been on my mac since early yesterday. I had planned to remain here indefinitely (long story), but don't think that's going to work.

This started because i've been receiving a more-than-usual number of paper cuts on Linux for the past week. Things like Wi-Fi dropping out randomly, Espanso stops working, Syncthing conflicts, and other little glitches and oddities that had become noticeable enough to annoy me.

Thing is, there are annoyances on the Mac, too. Spaces are unusable for me. Finder is still weak. SMB shares are slower and less reliable than a nice NFS share in fstab. Maybe the thing that bugs me most are the never-ending permissions dialogs. Coddle much?

Anyway, I kept saying "Ugh!" often enough for a couple of days that I'm now back at the Linux machine. It's so odd to me that, when I logged in, I felt like, "Whew, that's a relief!". I never thought that could happen, but here we are.

I'll probably waffle on this for as long as I use computers, so we'll see.

✍️ Reply by email

About Europe teaching the values it does not have - Protesilaos Stavrou: Master feed with all updates

2026-09-22T00:00:00.000Z

Writing for Social Europe, in an article titled Europe Cannot Defend Its Values by Teaching Them Professor Jørn Bjerre makes a case in favour of liberal democracy in the European Union:

Only by building institutions in which rational argument takes precedence over utility can we prove al-Nabhani wrong when he claims that “there are no ethical, spiritual or humanitarian values in Western civilisation. Instead, there are only materialistic and utilitarian ones.”

Jørn’s point is that European governments can make citizens feel attached to their liberal institutions and they can, by extension, engender a sense of belonging or shared destiny within the framework of liberal democracy. He formulates his argument against an Islamist view of the world.

I consider Jørn’s proposal impossible to realise because the midpoint of liberal democracy is individualism. Individualism stands counter to every expression of collectivist thought: you do what works for you and you do not make sacrifices for the greater good.

This is where the Islamist position is fundamentally correct: you submit to the authority of the collective and through the collective you find a role that contributes to the greater good; a good that is shared. This is how you have a culture and a nation that stands the test of time. Liberal democracy is a tiny blip in history made possible by the coincidence of material abundance in the West, which itself was/is the product of colonialism.

Whether Islam has always contributed to an ethical, spiritual, or humanitarian order is an empirical question for which we can find answers in history’s various Islamic empires. I suspect the answer is negative because imperialism develops its own materialistic logic: to control as much as possible at the international level and, by extension, to consolidate as much power as it can among the elites in society. Imperialism is a two-front war against culturally and socially defined “others”, which can be summed up as normalised greed. China is becoming another example: formerly communist, until it turns into a global superpower with the singular telos of expanding its dominion at all costs.

Boutique views of any religion are thus not constructive. None is perfect in its application because it depends on imperfect humans. Still, central to Islam—and to Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, and other worldviews for that matter—is an unconditional commitment to the collective and to all the structures that hold it in place. The requirement is faith in the worldly aspects of religion or administration more broadly, not mere spirituality in a vacuum. The believers do not just engage in a private relationship between the person and the divine. No! They recognise the authority of tutelary figures in their milieu, from parents and elderly relatives, to the religious hierarchs, and they behave in accordance with precepts passed down to them.

Religion thus is a political project, underpinned by theology and derivative corpora such as jurisprudence. Belief in God or some originary essence is important, of course, but from a historical standpoint it is belief in the political project as a whole that keeps everything going. Put simply, God does not need you, but society does.

For every culture that has survived over the centuries, some patterns will be common among them, especially those pertaining to social reproduction, i.e. biological and cultural continuity. The woman understands she has to be a mother. This requires collectivist thinking: to contribute to the family in phase one, to the neighbourhood in phase two, and to the wider society in phase three. The man knows he has to be a father and not waste his vitality on egoistic endeavours. Again, this is the same family-oriented mindset in which the male has to control, at least for the most part, his [self-]destructive propensities and instead channel his industry towards building a better world. The cleric needs to be a paragon of virtue and not some spirituality merchant. The pro-social basis must always be there. And so on.

When people fail to live up to the norms, provided they are capable of doing so, the society has a fixed point on the horizon—its values—with which it can judge whether a given situation is moving in the right direction or not. Without values there is no means of assessing outcomes. Put differently, you can move in any direction and see no problem with it in advance: you will only know you did something wrong after you suffer the consequences.

Values are the lessons learnt by a people through the course of millennia. They codify the knowledge that has been accumulated over the aeons in a manner that is didactic and mnemonic. Committing to what worked is how we avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over. Those values are collectivist in outlook: teachings passed from one generation to the next. Only through intergenerational solidarity does a people remain in place for centuries and does so without the need to continuously exploit others.

Values effectively are an early response mechanism, the antibodies of the society as it were, against moral decay. Such is not a nominal decline in some abstract morality: it always manifests as physical degradation because people quickly fall into self-destructive habits and/or commit to patterns of behaviour which erode the public good. If the woman is a whore, there is no stability in the household, eventually no family at all, and thus no people and no culture to be perpetuated. If the man is a womaniser/drunkard/gambler, the same problems arise from the other side. And so on. At the root of such decline is the turn to oneself, the failure to recognise and then to uphold the greater good through pro-social deeds, not mere words.

[ Also read: About the coolest Seoul neighbourhood and erosion of public spaces (2026-09-20). ]

The European Union does not have such values. What it describes as “European values” are empty talking points like those sprinkled across Jørn Bjerre’s opinion piece that sound nice to the ears of the academic or the politically correct apparatchik but do not inspire any collectivist conduct whatsoever. Virtue signalling is so deeply embedded in them that even their promoters do not recognise it. Take this from the excerpt I quoted above as an example:

Only by building institutions in which rational argument takes precedence over utility

It implies that those institutions do not exist right now. So they need to be created. If the institutions are not there already, it follows that whatever is in place is not conducive to rational argument, or not underpinned by it, and is thus promoting “utility”. Put differently, Jørn’s own exhortation leads to the logical conclusion that Europeans are a people with the aspiration to have values. And, I will add for emphasis, “people who nevertheless pretend to already have strong values”.

The European Union is what you get when bureaucrats gain too much power. The EU claims to stand for democracy but itself is not a democratic entity. There is no elected head of state in the EU. The European Commission is a bureaucratic apparatus with an appointed leadership. The European Council is an intergovernmental entity which decides for the supranational (European) level as a whole without having the commensurate accountability. This is the phenomenon of “sovereignty mismatch” that I have described many times before, including in the recent essay on Gigantism and Europe’s far-right transformation (2026-09-08). In short: rules for the whole, but accountability only for the parts.

This double speak extends to other areas of life. The European political elite has a tendency for humanitarianism à la carte, for example. Because jingoism in Eastern Europe is good business nowadays, they profess their strong commitment to the Ukrainian cause but turn a blind eye when Middle Eastern people are blown into smithereens.

It is understandable if you remain silent about issues you have no power over. But when you do have influence and, more importantly, when you claim to be holding the moral high ground on those matters, then I expect your deeds to match your claims. If all you have is aspirations, then you are a liar, my friend.

Widespread Islamism in Europe is a growing trend that will define the fate of the continent for centuries to come. Individualists will eventually be marginalised by cohesive groups. Others will recognise the pressing need to rekindle collectivism by rediscovering their communities. At any rate, those with no values will be replaced by the ones who uphold their values as sacrosanct.

Wonders of Web Weaving, Episode 20 - James' Coffee Blog

2026-09-22T00:00:00.000Z

The twentieth episode of Wonders of Web Weaving is out:

In Episode 20, I chat with Sara, the author of sarajoy.dev and whimsica11y.net, among other things, the importance of web accessibility, screen readers, and the joy of exploring and making things on the web.

I hope you enjoy the episode!

Wonders of Web Weaving also has an RSS feed you can use to follow along from wherever you get your podcasts.

Sara sarajoy.dev The twentieth episode of Wonders of Web Weaving is out Wonders of Web Weaving also has an RSS feed whimsica11y.net

Monday, September 21, 2026 - Baty.net

2026-09-21T11:26:39.000Z

Surfer and stumbler (2026)

I'm not sure if "Reduce & Simplify" means Emacs with a browser and file manager on Linux, or macOS with the default apps. I am fully on Linux now, but I keep side-eyeing the MacBook Air as if it will somehow rescue me.

Honestly, I'm burning out on computers and software. I'm addicted to farting around with things. I spent the weekend installing and using Lotus Agenda from, like, 1990. For a minute I considered trying to use it exclusively as my task/project manager for a month. I mean, it's cool and retro, but seriously? It's a terrible idea that swallowed a good bit of my weekend.

Today I woke up and dreaded opening Emacs. My whole life has been in Emacs for years and today I thought maybe I no longer wanted it there. I'm typing this in Emacs in a Markdown file created using a key binding that created, placed, and formatted the file. All in Emacs. I'll deploy this post the same way. Then I'll check my RSS feeds, Email, and Mastodon...all in Emacs. Then I'll review my tasks for the week. Also in Emacs. If I leave Emacs I'm screwed. At least for a while. Although, I wouldn't miss the incessant tinkering, the complex configuration, or the frustration with using it on different machines.

OK, now it's 10:20 am and I am sitting at my Mac after updating to macOS 27.2 developer beta and running all of my brew/mo/topgrade updates. Everything works except all the little scripts I made on Linux with no consideration of macOS. I've uninstalled everything I think I can live without. The MiniStack with both external drives has been formatted for Linux and is attached to the Beelink, so I've only got 500GB to work with. Emacs is working. It's really nice to use Apple Mail (never thought I'd say that) and BBEdit and I even opened Day One. I have some thinking to do.

Thankfully, my afternoon is booked so I won't be able to completely nuke my whole setup. I hope by the time I return that I've come to my senses and will switch back to the Linux machine and stop this nonsense. It's either that or I finish checking out on Apple.com with the M6 Mac Mini pre-order that I put in my cart this morning.

✍️ Reply by email

Of Day - James' Coffee Blog

2026-09-21T00:00:00.000Z

I stand at the bookshelves — art and Nature and biography and memoir — and ask myself what story I want to tell. What do I want to write?

What I do know is I want to write something. And so I begin.

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

My adventure began with zines. I packed four zines to read: three pocket-sized that had been kindly sent by a friend, and one folded, A3-sized zine that I had purchased at the weekend. The reading material got me through the wee hours of the morning, food for thought after breakfast, and left me with a list of more zines to search through. The zines took me to Edinburgh and Canada – one place I know well, a source of perpetual joy and curiosity and adventure; the other I have never visited, but would love to one day. In a sense, I visited Canada a little bit through the words of an author this morning. Therein, the power of writing – of storytelling.

Should I write more zines? What if I started printing a few of my blog posts and sending them to friends? Should I write more that I exclusively publish as a zine?

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

This weekend I purchased a copy of the Edinburgh Bookshop Map, published by Typewronger. The map, printed with a risograph machine using red and black ink and whose cover is typeset in a Gothic font, became my map of today. I should try and go to as many of the included bookshops as possible. Last night I set out five shops I could visit that were on the way to an errand I had to run. Today, I began – or, rather, continued, for I have already visited ten shops on the map – my adventure.

I knew today I would be walking far, but I didn’t realise how far I would be walking. I spent most of the morning on foot, weaving between bookshops, running an errand, and drinking a delicious coffee that reminded me of pear and blackcurrant and caramel – the coffee was fuel for the moment, the bookshops were fuel for the morning. I ended up visiting three: an Oxfam charity shop that specialises in books, with a wonderful antiquarian selection, Rare Birds, which specialises in books by female authors, and Golden Hare, which had an eclectic mix and had me standing still at the Nature and memoir and art section for a few minutes, and where I found myself writing the opening sentence to this blog post. What do I want to write?

Where would my writing fit? Memoir? Nature?

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

In the park later in the day a lady’s jeans stood out. They were sky blue with polka dots that looked like stars in the moment before nightfall. Around me, the blue sky and the warm sunshine and the brilliant beginnings of red leaves marked the essence of the day. A cool morning became a warm afternoon – summer is slowly becoming autumn. In front of where I stood, watching the world go by in the heart of the city – and in one of my favourite parks – there was some graffiti written in red, blue, and yellow chalk. The lettering was mostly illegible but the impression of the strokes made me think of the word “bliss.” Here, the bliss of Day.

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

I wandered to the art gallery, where I was welcomed with words both perplexing and wonderful. I held the door open that connected the antechamber to the main galleries. A lady asked “Say, where do you keep the artist’s chairs?”. Her accent was brilliantly English. I stumble for a moment. “Oh, I don’t work here.” I continued to hold the door open for a few more people, before someone said I could go first and walk in. In school, my best friend and I used to love holding doors open for people. I haven’t thought about that in the longest time.

I was fascinated by a painting near the entranceway. I have looked at the painting closely before, but today I saw new symbols – the connection between the colour red and the subject matter, the flow of clothing, the foregrounding of Nature relative to the city in the background. Walking around further, exploring more paintings, I found myself looking up in awe, admiring a personification of poetry, and thinking about how, here, I can wander from world to world, from time to time. In Ruisdael’s Banks of a River, the tall trees reach for the sky in our imaginations. In another room, architecture and Nature and history exist side-by-side, in separate canvases that are connected together through curation, through place.

I was tired from all my walking in the morning, so I didn’t explore the gallery space too much. But, I did make sure to visit my favourite painting on display in the space: the Turner. I again saw something new today. I saw the silver and sky blue air of Nature. I found a new connection to the water. I thought about why I love Impressionist art and Turner’s art so much. I love the colours. I love the energy. I appreciate the subject matters. I enjoy how my imagination is engaged when I see a colourful work whose contours are a blurry invitation to dream.

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

The map gave me direction for the day. I visited three bookshops on my list ¹ and spent my day with stories both written and visual, as well as the stories that were happening all around me. My wanderings took me from words to art, and then to music, when I heard someone play Mamma Mia on a public piano to which one passer-by was singing along. Reflecting on the music I heard played, I think about hope. Just as the sun shines through the ever changing clouds and the wind breathes life into Day, so too can we bring joy with words and art and music – with stories, with our melodies.

⁂ ⁂ ⁂

When I got home, sitting at the foot of my letterbox there a letter from a friend. They had sent me a zine from one of the series mentioned in a zine I read earlier today. Sometimes the world can be wonderful.

One I also wanted to visit was closed, and another was a children’s bookstore, and I think I will skip them as part of my ambition to visit as many bookshops on the map as possible

[↩]

1 [↩]