Lost in the darkness of crossed wires and cajolery, we seek companionship.

Animals—feeling and curious—are suffocated by manufactured convenience.

Nature endures, while we persevere within the walls of our words.

Garbed in reflexive language, AI readily offloads introspection.

Underneath: atrophy of selfhood, decay of authenticity.

A slow, gradual disconnection.

Ghosts flicker in absence, blink.

Echoes…

Share

Philosophy has a reputation for convoluted explanations, tortuous reasoning, and unnecessarily complex sentences—what some of my family members would call highfalutin writing. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve read some ridiculous passage for the umpteenth time and thought, “My god, could you have made this any more difficult for your readers? Did you really have to write it like that?” Take this passage from Søren Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death:

“The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself…In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation of the relation; thus under the qualification of the psychical the relation between the psychical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is the self.”

I know. It’s ridiculous. What he’s saying here is basically this: if we think of ourselves as split between the physical and mental, the mind and the body, then what we call a person is the relation between the two. For we are not simply one or the other but a combination of them, and they have to relate in some way. But it is only when you begin to self-reflect and self-interpret, when you can see yourself through this relationship, that selfhood arises.

It seems obvious that he could have explained his idea much differently. Why this wordy, borderline nonsense, instead of a straightforward explanation? I have no idea—but in some cases it’s justified, if only in a more limited sense. What I’m referring to here is the use of jargon. To streamline discussion, the medical field has terms like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which is a procedure that uses a small camera to examine the upper small intestine, bile ducts, and pancreatic ducts, with contrast dye injected backward into these ducts for imaging. Of course, doctors have to explain this every time they use the phrase with a patient, but imagine if they also had to explain it in every conversation with a fellow doctor. Those conversations among experts, in this case doctors, would go nowhere; they would devolve into constant explanation, and this is why we have jargon.

Let’s take an example of Charles Taylor’s use of jargon in Sources of the Self.

“A moral reaction is an assent to, an affirmation of, a given ontology of the human.” (SS 5)

This sentence isn’t too bad. Yes, it’s a bit wordy but not unnecessarily so, and other than the use of ‘ontology’, it’s quite readable—a far cry from Kierkegaard. I want to draw our attention to this sentence because it’s the key to understanding the rest of the chapter, but to get us in a position to know what ‘ontology’ means, we have to do some groundwork. Lucky for you, I’m here to guide you along the way, and of course, I’m going to get there in a roundabout way, because, well, I fancy myself a philosopher.

So we’ll start with the first part of the sentence. What does Taylor mean by ‘moral reaction’? They concern “...the respect for life, integrity, and well-being, even flourishing, of others. These are the ones we infringe when we kill or maim others, steal their property, strike fear into them and rob them of their peace, or even refrain from helping them when they are in distress.” (SS 4). When we react to injustice, we’re revolted by the wicked treatment of the powerless or feel compassion toward the starving. There seems to be a natural, almost universal drive toward or away from certain behaviors and actions, and these are “so deep that we are tempted to think of them as rooted in instinct.” (SS 4).

People tend to think of moral reactions as gut instincts, visceral reactions like recoiling from loud, sudden noises, or our tendency to yawn when others yawn, or the nauseating effects of alcohol. The connection between these experiences and our reactions is a brute fact. We experience and react—there’s nothing here to argue about whether we should recoil or be nauseated. We do, however, argue about our moral reactions. We argue over who deserves respect and why, and we argue about the obligations we owe others when we attempt to justify our moral reactions. When arguing about why a person deserves to be treated with respect, we might say they’re “...creatures of God and made in his image, or that they are immortal souls, or that they are all imminations of divine fire, or that they are all rational agents and thus have dignity which transcends any other being, or some other such characterization; and that therefore we owe them respect.” (SS 5). We can’t argue about what truly does or doesn’t deserve a nauseous reaction—but we can argue about who does or doesn’t deserve respect, and we do so by making a claim about what kind of beings they are.

We can perhaps see this better by examining the difference between anger and indignation. Anger only rises to indignation when we perceive a grave injustice, when some standard of treatment is not met. When, for instance, a holy man is denied the Eucharist, or an autonomous agent is denied liberty, or when an artist is denied self-expression. Indignation goes beyond anger because it carries with it a sense of righteous outrage, and this outrage is a product of how we understand the human condition. It is only through the claim about what a person is that we can understand why the act denied is so outrageous, why it incites indignation; an autonomous agent ought to be able to choose.

This can be seen again in the special weight we give to protecting children, the care we exhibit in our interactions with them, and the disgust we feel at their being exposed to what they ought not to be. Children are an unrealized potential that deserves protection not just because of what they are now, but because of what they can become, and we have a responsibility to protect them from knowledge, experiences, or choices that would corrupt them or force premature moral complexity on them. Our moral reactions to harms against children involve implicit claims about a child’s innocence, vulnerability, and lack of moral maturity.

Let’s now turn to Taylor’s quote above: “A moral reaction is an assent to, an affirmation of, a given ontology of the human.” Our moral reactions are the emotions we feel in situations that concern the life, liberty, and flourishing of others, and we feel the corresponding emotion because they incorporate an idea of what a human being is, an ontology. Feeling an emotion like indignation is to assent or affirm the underlying ontology that justifies the standard being transgressed, and an ontology is the background idea about what a person is that makes our moral reactions make sense. We feel indignant toward the denial of liberty because we are autonomous beings whose point and purpose in life is to exercise our autonomy, or outraged about the denial of last rites to a faithful woman in our congregation, or revolted at the violation of a child’s innocence.

Ontological accounts justify standards of treatment. We can understand the kind of respect owed, the obligations laid upon us, when we come to see each other as persons of a certain kind—rational agents, or self-defining creatures with a unique view on things, or as children of God. What we are defines how we and others should be treated, and this cuts both ways.

Just as ontologies justify why we ought to respect people, they can also give us reason to disrespect people. One only has to claim that others are spawns of satan, incapable of rational thought, or complete idiots without the powers of expression, and therefore they don’t deserve respect. Indeed, the claim would be that they deserve worse treatment, even death.

This is the process of dehumanization. The dehumanizer has to push a person or persons outside the ontology that justifies respect; to claim they’re outside the bounds of what a real human, with all our faculties, is. The boundary is pushed through a host of terms: barbarian, savage, vermin, parasite, subhuman, terrorist. Words like these give license for inferior treatment, and they often do so implicitly, which is why those who wish to shrink our ontological boundaries should be forced to explain, explicitly, why it is these particular people deserve to be left on the outside. Or why there should be an outside at all.

If these ontological accounts can justify inhumane treatment, then perhaps we should do without them completely. Perhaps we could prescind from our moral reactions altogether. The argument might go something like this: We should neutralize our moral reactions so we can come to a better, more objective view about our moral obligations and who truly deserves respect. In coming to see what we really are, without emotions which cloud our judgement, we can see more clearly just what is owed to ourselves and others. Besides, all this talk of ontological accounts seems analogous to theories in the natural sciences, “In that they (a) are rather remote from our everyday descriptions by which we deal with people around us and ourselves, and (b) make reference to our conception of the universe and the place we occupy in it.” (SS 7).

It seems obvious, then, that we should argue about our moral obligations like we would argue about a scientific theory. We should start by identifying facts independent of our emotions and reactions, and then try to show that one theory was better than another. “But once we do this, we have lost from view what we’re arguing about.” For ontological accounts justify our moral reactions. “They articulate the claims implicit in our reactions. We can no longer argue about [morality] once we have assumed a neutral stance and try to describe the facts as they are independent of these reactions, as we have done in natural science since the seventeenth century.” (SS 8). Neutralizing our moral reactions requires stepping outside moral deliberation completely, for moral deliberation can only occur within the context of our emotions. Solely through feeling the weight of obligation can we begin to decide if the burden is worth bearing; only by feeling our blood boil with indignation can we begin to see why it is that people deserve respect and dignity. To detach from these emotions is to recede from the moral arena within which these claims are argued about. “No argument can take someone from a neutral stance towards the world, either adopted from the demands of science or fallen into as a consequence of pathology, to insight into moral ontology.” (SS 8).

This brings us back to a point made previously: emotions carry with them judgments about what is significant for us. They point us toward what matters in our lives, meaning our moral reactions are not limited to the respect and obligation we feel owed to others, but also include what makes our own lives meaningful and the dignity we command. Another reason why the neutral stance of avoiding our moral reactions can’t be carried through is that they help form frameworks for making sense of our lives. Frameworks are constituted by fundamental evaluations about what’s worth doing, what would bring us fulfillment. They help us orient ourselves to what matters, to what a meaningful life consists of, to what the good life really is, and our emotions are the windows through which we can access them. Frameworks constitute our identity—to be without a framework would mean “the world loses altogether its spiritual contour, nothing is worth doing, the fear is of a terrifying emptiness, a kind of vertigo, or even a fracturing of our world and body-space.” (SS 18).

A fuller explanation of the nature of frameworks and their relation to identity and selfhood is the subject of our next essay. I only bring this connection up to entice you to begin examining your emotions and what they may say about you. What brings you guilt or shame? Awe or disgust? What standards are being violated when you feel indignation?

Rejoice in all that lies ahead, unknown;
In the meadow that lies beyond the fog,
Such fertile soil, awaiting seeds yet sown.
Though worn and toiled, with joy abide thou.

Glory to the gentle discovery:
Thy self unfolds as petals in the spring,
In slow becoming, drawn through history–
A self composed of thy every fault.
Each glorious misstep, a looking glass.

Rejoice in the analog, mortal mind;
Squat upon the damp, earthen undergrowth,
With knees besmirched by soil and forest grime,
And shoulders stooped, kissed by golden sunbeams,
Pouring over pages, pocket-sized and torn—
Plants of the Coast, Pacific and obscure.
Mind follows body, weaving with the stream.
Praise this divine art: the not-yet-known.

Rejoice the children’s unanswered questions,
Innocent curiosity driving
Wild-eyed discovery agape in awe
Of the spider’s web—art of silken thread, 
The bee’s hive—her den humming alive,
Blades of grass and their music in the wind,
Vast expanse between the stars, dark as death;
The resting place of wishes upon vesper bells.

Praise the protest of rationality.
To the brave souls questioning and seeking,
I raise a toast of thanks and praise.
Poets and philosophers, what say you?
To what shall we grasp onto tenderly;
Dew upon the leaves when the night births day,
Resting comrades shaded beneath an oak,
A park with children at play,
Loving, bickering, then loving some more.

Rejoice in the beauty of selfhood! 
’Tis a gift—the imperfections of thyself.
No code or algorithm could contain
The unique mistakes of identity.
Praise to the human heart by which we live.

Share Communitarian Review

We are entering a period not unlike previous eras in Western history. I don't mean merely the parallels with our predicament a century ago, with its crumbling institutions, rising fascism, and proliferation of violence—although these are clearly pressing. I mean the rise of a rational, scientific worldview that seeks to instrumentalize and optimize our experiences, our society, and ourselves. I believe the rise of science in the seventeenth century, and the romantic movement that arose in backlash to it, can serve as a useful lesson for those of us hoping to navigate the upheavals and transformations of our time, but to come to grips with this requires rediscovering and recovering the tensions and debates that raged in those centuries.

What I’m pointing toward might be described as a historical understanding of our current predicament, an exploration and analysis of how we got to this place we call modernity. This is what Charles Taylor attempts to do, among other things, in his book Sources of the Self. He does this through an exploration of modern identity, and I can think of no better place to start.

Of course, a book like Sources assumes much. Taylor assumes you know quite a bit of philosophy’s jargon, and his writing can be dense and abstract. Nonetheless I find his work invaluable, and I want to share it with you because we’re navigating together, not as individuals but as a society. I will go chapter-by-chapter or section-by-section, whichever is more appropriate, to unearth his insights. Along the way, I will put his ideas to use in analyzing contemporary phenomena. The end point of this exploration and exposition will not dismiss rationality and science, but place them in their proper relation to other human goods just as worthy of pursuit.

So, I invite you on a journey with me through Charles Taylor’s thought so that we may begin to have a clearer idea of what’s happening around, and to us. Before we begin, however, it might be useful to fill out this picture of a rational, scientific worldview, and to do this, we need to examine two fundamentally different ways of understanding what it means to be human.

The most immediate way of contrasting these differences is to ask, What is it that distinguishes humans from other animals?

Many of us would reply, “Our rationality and intelligence, of course.” What makes us human is our ability to plan, rationalize, strategize, and achieve our goals with maximum efficiency. Fundamental to our humanity is calculation, to see the paths ahead, predict their consequences, and act. What is crucial here is the power to see things clearly—to establish truth from fiction, the reasonable from the unreasonable, the probable from the improbable.

According to this view, what makes a person fully, ideally, human is the power to plan and achieve our ends, and clarity and complexity of calculation are indispensable to our evaluating and executing.

This is a performance criterion, one that could be matched on a machine. A sufficiently intelligent machine could be human, or at least humanlike, if it can envision long enough timelines and execute an optimal strategy to achieve some arbitrary goal. This view tends to see consciousness as the distinguishing mark between man and machine, and if we must be conscious to achieve all these intelligent feats, then perhaps machines are too? Or will be one day? This view of what it is to be human underlies much of the confused talk we hear today about AI consciousness, and leads to very confused conceptions of our humanity that try to assimilate human thinking to machine thinking. Clearly, the rise of talking machines puts the question of what it means to be human squarely on our agenda.

If rationality and intelligence are not the defining features of a human being, then what makes us unique among Earth's animals?

Another view focuses on the nature of agency. What is crucial to all agents, animals included, is that things matter to them, “that we can attribute purposes, desires, aversions to them in a strong, original sense.” We and animals alike possess original, non-derivative purposes, while machines are designed to achieve a task or set of tasks—they have derivative purposes. Humans and animals act because things matter; things in our lives carry significance, and we act out of our original sense of things.

When a cat hunts, its purpose springs from its own being; the hunger, the need, the drive to catch prey emerges from what it is to be a cat. No one assigned this purpose to the cat, no one programmed it in; it's original to the cat's nature; its purpose is non-derivative.

Contrast this with a chess-playing computer, which pursues victory by calculating millions of moves, but this goal of winning isn't its own—we gave it that purpose, wrote it into the code. The computer's purposes are derivative. It optimizes for objectives we've selected, solves problems we've defined. The difference is in the source of purpose: for humans and animals, purposes arise from within, from our own nature as beings for whom things matter.

But if animals have original purposes too, then what distinguishes us is our ability to achieve our ends better than other animals, and as long as we think in terms of strategic action, this seems undeniable. If we adopt this second view, however, we come to see that there are peculiarly human concerns. It’s not just intelligence, but the ends to which that intelligence gets used—the ends that make up human life are sui generis, unique; a performance criterion no longer suffices.

“The ends of survival and reproduction begin to appear in a new light. What it is to maintain and hand on a human form of life, that is, a given culture, is also a peculiarly human affair…the essence of evaluation no longer consists in assessment in the light of fixed goals, but also and even more in the sensitivity to certain standards, those involved in peculiarly human goals.”

Rationality and science are constituted by such standards. Science and rationality require that I stand back from my predicament, that I see things how they objectively are, that I disengage from my feelings about it, and dismiss my foolish beliefs until they can be verified by the instruments of science, and without these standards—these ways of going about my life rationally and objectively—I could not be a fully rational, autonomous creature capable of efficiently conquering my goals.

Any mode of life requires sensitivity to the standards of that life. Indeed, one could go so far as to say that a mode of life can only be lived through standards, that without these standards, I couldn’t call it a human mode of life at all—I would be just another animal. To be human is to live by certain recognized standards; this is one of Taylor’s theses in Sources. I am sensitive to these standards because they carry a certain significance. I live my life in this manner because being rational matters to me; it’s how I express myself to the world; it’s part of my identity.

But much of this can be unarticulated. It’s not that I identify these standards and then live them out—although that can certainly be true, and coming into explicit contact with them can help us more fully realize them—but often these standards are the assumed background, the inarticulate horizon out of which I act and carry myself. Part of what Taylor attempts to recover in Sources is exactly these background assumptions and what empowers them.

To understand how this scientific view gained such power, we must look back to a crucial distinction made in the seventeenth century—that between primary and secondary properties.

Secondary properties, like taste, smell, and felt heat, are anthropomorphic; they only exist because we experience them; they are subjective. True knowledge, then, requires that I look beyond these to what’s really, objectively there. To know something is to describe it in terms of primary properties, mass, volume, quantity, etc. Properties that would exist without human experiences of them.

“The eschewal of anthropomorphic properties was undoubtedly one of the bases of the spectacular progress of natural science in the last three centuries. And ever since, therefore, the idea has seemed attractive of somehow adapting this move to [understanding] man.” In other words, we may come to understand humanity by laying aside our experiences, by treating ourselves as objects among objects to be completely described and understood through primary properties and mechanistic forces.

And so we get reductive explanations of human behavior in terms of evolution, or neurochemistry, or cognitive computation, and the like. These accounts attempt to explain and make sense of ourselves and our behavior by sidestepping the significance things have for us, to come to an objective truth about how things really are, that is, without reference to anthropomorphic properties and subjective experience.

But this cannot be carried through, and we can come to see this by looking at some of our emotions like pride, shame, guilt, love, and our sense of worth. “When we try to state what is particular to each one of these feelings, we find we can only do so if we describe the situation in which we feel them, and what we are inclined to do in it. Shame is what we feel in a situation of humiliating exposure, and we want to hide ourselves from this; fear what we feel in a situation of danger, and we want to escape it; guilt when we are aware of transgression.” To feel an emotion is to judge a particular situation a certain way.

But we can also have irrational emotions, whereby I can see that the situation isn’t really shameful, but I can’t help but go on feeling that way. Or I can feel dispassionately, where I see that the judgment holds, but am not moved by it. “Feeling the emotion in question just is being struck, or moved by, the state of affairs the judgment describes.” I can often only describe an emotion by describing the situation in which it arises, and this I can only do by describing the significance things have for me. Let’s examine this by way of example.

The shame I feel when I stumble over my words during an important presentation cannot be adequately described simply as a neurochemical response or an evolutionary holdover from our need to maintain social standing within the group. To understand what shame is in this moment, I must describe how I interpret the situation: I see myself as exposed before others as incompetent, as failing to meet the standards I and they expect of me. The presentation matters to me—it represents my professional competence, my preparation, my respect for those listening. When I stumble, I experience the situation as one where my inadequacy is laid bare, where I have fallen short of what the moment demanded.

My shame involves being struck by this significance—by the gap between who I wanted to appear as and who I fear I have revealed myself to be. I want to disappear, to undo the exposure, to somehow restore the professional image that feels damaged. This wanting to hide isn't separate from the shame; it's part of what the shame is. The emotion cannot be separated from how the situation matters to me, from the meanings and values at stake: my sense of professional identity, my concern for others' respect, my standards for myself.

No reductive account that sidesteps these meanings, that tries to explain shame purely in terms of brain chemistry or social conditioning, can capture what makes this particular emotion—and the resulting behavior—the specific human experience it is. The shame is inseparable from the world of significance in which I live and move. It seems clear that our behavior, especially our most complex behaviors, the kinds that weigh on us most heavily, cannot be adequately interpreted without incorporating the way things matter to us.

And so these two views differ on how to explain human behavior—one reaching for reductive explanations, the other for the significance in our lives—but they also differ in how we should go about understanding our situation and what we should do in it.

“The subject according to the significance perspective is in a world of meanings that he imperfectly understands. His task is to interpret it better, in order to know who he is and what he ought to seek.” But a man according to the reductive view already understands his ends, and “His world is one of potential means, which he understands with a view to control. He is in a crucial sense disengaged.”

And to truly know something is to know it from the outside, as it were, without the significance it carries. “To be able to look on everything, world and society, in this perspective, would be to neutralize its significance, and this would be a kind of freedom—the freedom of the self-defining subject, who determines his own purposes, or finds them in his own natural desires.”

Control and the freedom it offers partially empower this view. To be rational and objective is to be in control, and to be in control is to be free. I can define and determine my life because I can see things clearly and control them. My ends are given by nature and discoverable by objective scrutiny, and so what matters is how to achieve them, “reason is and ought to be instrumental.”

Typical questions when trying to grasp a situation and the kinds of actions appropriate to it include: What is the most efficient way to achieve my goals? What resources do I need, and how can I acquire them? What are the causal relationships at work here? What are the probabilities of all possible outcomes? What biological or evolutionary factors shape my behavior? What biases and emotions are getting in my way? What are the laws that govern this phenomenon? How can I model this system mathematically?

“Utilitarianism is a product of this modern conception, with its stress on instrumental reasoning, on calculation, and on a naturalistically identified end, happiness (or on a neutral, interpretation-free account of human choice, in terms of preferences). The stress on freedom emerges in its rejection of paternalism. And in rationality it has a stern and austere ideal of disengaged disciplined choice.”

Beyond freedom and control, there’s another source for this worldview’s power, and it can be found in Western religious traditions. We see a similar aspiration in the religious impulse to rise above the merely human, to step outside the prison of typical human concerns, to be free from the demands they place on us, and to turn to what truly matters: the holy and sacred. This is another thesis in Sources, that we can locate what spiritually empowers this flattened view of the human in the very aspiration of our religious forefathers. The irony, of course, is the denial of the spiritual by those so deeply imbued by it, but a fuller explanation will have to be put off for now.

The significance view takes a different route. What is paramount is self-exploration and -expression, and by listening to our emotions we may come to find what really matters to us. We might ask ourselves: What is properly shameful? What should we feel guilty about? In what does dignity consist? What does the natural world demand of me or call forth from me? What do our emotions reveal about what truly matters to us? How do my feelings of pride, love, or admiration point to values I hold dear? What constitutes my authentic self versus mere surface preferences?

These questions do not always have clear, definitive answers; they are often exploratory and tentative, but that makes the process of expression crucial. For self-definition comes about by exploring and articulating the significance things have for us, by making clear what exactly matters. Those who hunger for certainty and clairvoyance will not find it here.

These competing models of our humanity are everywhere today; they are the water we swim in, but most people operate with some (inconsistent) combination of the two. We often feel the pull of one, then the other; perhaps one in our social sphere and the other in the economic realm. We feel the need to express ourselves, and we are often compelled toward instrumental rationality, the need to optimize our lives and order them by the dictates of efficiency.

The tragedy of our time is that we've forgotten these are both human achievements, both necessary, both partial. When tech evangelists promise to optimize human experience through algorithms and machine learning, they're channeling one side of our inheritance. When wellness influencers urge us to "follow our truth" and "honor our feelings," they're channeling the other. Neither side seems to remember its origin story, which is why their solutions feel so thin.

And why I’ve neglected religious views entirely, for both the reductive and significance views ultimately find their roots in religious traditions.

Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self is worth our time and energy, because he offers a genealogy of these views, their shared origins and intertwined histories, each feeding off the other and developing together. This is the historical understanding that we must recover and put to work if we’re to navigate the transformations of our time.

Secluded in the dense Northern California forest, stands a home shaped by the trees that tower it; redwood, pine and cedar. Within these walls, intentionally crafted by weathered hands, this museum cradles pieces untouched by time. Cobwebs lace frames taunting memories just out of reach. Exhibits of a familiar life not quite mine; a worn cowboy hat hung over an oak bed post, an acrylic painting of chanterelles, a grand piano painted with dust, and a music sheet flipped to Beethoven’s Moonlight sonata. And the hummingbirds! Everywhere— Calliope and Violetear, Broad-billed and Anna’s; carved delicately upon wood, shaped by finely blown glass and drawn by hands I will never hold. On the wall, hangs a familiar smirk trapped behind a graveyard of glass. Under morning sun, I pick plums from a tree that has fed mouths long before mine. Biting into its fruit, juice drips down my chin and monarchs dance overhead. Surrounding this home that is also a museum, joy grows beside grief and they both taste sweet

We’re told that AI is just a tool. That if we use it “responsibly,” everything will be fine. Adapt. Marvel. Comply. Stop asking real questions.

But many of us are asking, feeling, and noticing—how these tools reshape our thinking, how we feel, and how we relate to ourselves and each other. Noticing how we reach for convenience, and feel more fractured. Noticing how our inner lives feel more crowded and somehow emptier. This is not a manifesto. It’s not an argument against all technology. This is a call to attention in an age where our attention is commodified. A call to investigate what’s happening inside us, what we’re quietly giving up in the name of “progress.”

What is this space?

This community is a space to reflect on how artificial intelligence, social media, and digital culture are reshaping our inner and outer lives.

• How we see ourselves

• How we form relationships

• How we learn, create, and make meaning

• How we remember to be fully human

It’s about the erosion of curiosity, the automation of thought, the gamification of connection.
It’s about resisting the idea that being human is something to optimize.

What’s ahead?

Each week, we’ll share short essays, questions, and guest reflections exploring themes like:

• What does it mean to think for ourselves in an age of algorithmic suggestion?

• How does technology reshape the way we experience ourselves and our world?

• What does it mean to create when machines can mimic expression?

• How can we care for ourselves and each other in digital spaces that prioritize speed over depth?

This will also be a space for you: your thoughts, your questions, your stories.
I’ll include invitations for reflection, prompts for journaling or discussion, and links to essays exploring similar questions.

What this isn’t

• It’s not a tech newsletter.

• It’s not anti-technology.

• It’s not trying to scare you, sell you, or simplify anything.

This is a space for quiet discomfort to have a voice, for the moments that don’t make headlines but linger in the gut, and the questions that machines can’t answer but keep us human just for asking.

Your feedback and ideas are welcome here. This isn’t a monologue, it’s an invitation. Together, we can remember what still belongs to us.

Shall we begin?

Subscribe now