My mom told me about a creepy guy who came to her door and I want to say, “Why are you answering your door?” I never go to the door at some random knock. If you want me to open the door, text me first. Rachel and I are always quoting Moss on this subject.

Asha Amemiya, in The Abundance of Less by Andy Couturier:

“So, why do you think so many people get caught up in this [drive for convenience]?”

“I really don’t know,” she says, laughing, although perhaps somewhat bitterly. “I wonder why it is? Maybe it’s just that humans are that kind of animal; they don’t really want to move toward satisfaction.”

”Humans are that kind of animal.” I have a theory that’s something like this.

The Christian creation/fall story says that the sense of wrongness in the world is due to the sin of Adam and Eve. Because of their disobedience to God’s command, humanity is cursed—and the rest of the cosmos with them.

I also feel that sense of wrongness (“this is not how it’s supposed to be”) that lies at the root of the Adam and Eve story. It would seem that many other people in many other cultures also feel it, given that something like a fall story exists in other cultures around the world.

In my theory, I take the sense of wrongness as a given but I am not convinced that it exists beyond humanity. In other words, humanity has a problem but the cosmos does not. What if humans just are that kind of animal? What if humanity evolved in some way that was reproductively beneficial but broke humanity relative to the rest of the cosmos? What if the incorrigibility of humanity gave us a temporary advantage (we’ve taken over the world, after all) but is, in the long run, an evolutionary dead end and will lead to our extinction?

If this is true then it’s not (as in the revivalist hymn) that this world is not our home; it’s that we have forgotten who our family is.

Plans for my next woodworking project:

• Get one of my hand planes in working order
• Build Rex Krueger’s low workbench out of salvaged 2x4 studs.
• Build a desk. I plan to make the top from the lovely old trim I salvaged recently, which I’ll then attach to some black metal legs.

I love vinyl records too, but you know what’s cheap and plentiful for the person who wants to own their music? CDs. My local record store had a huge selection but half price books and thrift stores have just as many with even lower prices. And CD players are cheaper than record players right now.

Inspired by this video from Rex Krueger, I decided my best way into hand planing would be to go cheap and put some work into making them better. Coincidentally, I won a Target gift card in a contest at work, which I used on the two inexpensive Stanley planes on the ends. Then I went to an auction and got the three in the middle for a few dollars. So now I’ll be following Rex’s instructions on getting them set up and sharpened.

Recording taken by me on the morning of August 8, 2020, at the Canyon Forest Nature Preserve. Listening to the wood thrush’s song echoing through the forest was a beautiful moment that still comes to mind now and then.

Anyone have a good chai recipe for a newbie? I tried this one from Chetna of Great British Bake Off fame using Darjeeling tea but it tasted a bit thin. I wanted something fuller and more flavorful. (Or maybe I’m expecting the wrong thing because I’m an American coffee drinker?)

Three things that (synchronistically?) fell into my world this week:

1. Atsuko Watanabe, in The Abundance of Less by Andy Couturier:

“Most people spend their time relating entirely to things that are made solely for the purpose of keeping the economy spinning, of making money for someone, such as television and television shows, and eating food that’s not good for them. And to get that money, everyone throws away their own time that was free before, even if the work they do is not useful. Everyone around them thinks it’s natural and normal. Even though they’re incredibly busy on the physical, body level, moving around all the time, they are empty on the level of spirit.”

“So why do they do it, do you think?”

“Because they don’t stop to consider, Why is it that I as a human am alive?”

2. James Hillman, The Soul’s Code, explaining an idea in Plato’s Republic:

The soul of each of us is given a unique daimon before we are born, and it has selected an image or pattern that we live on earth. This soul-companion, the daimon, guides us here; in the process of arrival, however, we forget all that took place and believe we come empty into this world. The daimon remembers what is in your image and belongs to your pattern, and therefore your daimon is the carrier of your destiny.

As explained by the greatest of later Platonists, Plotinus, we elected the body, the parents, the place, and the circumstances that suited the soul and that, as the myth says, belong to its necessity. This suggests that the circumstances, including my body and my parents whom I may curse, are my soul’s own choice–and I do not understand this because I have forgotten.

So that we do not forget, Plato tells the myth and, in the very last passage, says that by preserving the myth we may better preserve ourselves and prosper. In other words, the myth has a redemptive psychological function, and a psychology derived from it can inspire a life founded on it.

3. Charles Eisenstein’s brief film, “The Fall”.

Price, our scrawny black cat, somehow got out of the house last Friday. (He’s done this before. He loves the outdoors and spends most of the summer laying in our screened-in back porch.) This morning he came strolling into the backyard and seems fine. I’d love to know what he’s been up to.

I am very grateful to David Walbert @dwalbert for two posts—here and here—in response to my posts on Ivan Illich’s theory of tools. He got me to think about the ideas a little more carefully than I did in my first enthusiasm. And in doing so, I’m attempting to think with Illich’s ideas rather than simply repeating them.

Let’s see if we can read Ivan Illich animistically, by reframing his ideas against the background of a living cosmos. For those who may be unfamiliar, animism is—to use Graham Harvey’s famous definition—the recognition that

the world is full of persons, only some of whom are human, and that life is always lived in relationship to others.

It would seem that Illich sees tools as objects, created and used by human subjects, but not as subjects in themselves. That is, he is concerned that tools are designed in such a way that they give maximum creative freedom to their users as they exist in relationship with other humans, without ever addressing the relationship with the tool itself. So let’s see if we can push his ideas in an animist direction.

In a convivial society, the human tool user can enter into a partnership with a tool such that the human can exercise their creativity freely while respecting the nature of the tool and the tool can fulfill its own purpose freely and peacefully, without dominating its human partner.

The question then becomes: can I enter into partnership with this tool? Will the partnership be one where each respects the nature and role of the other?

I need to make a fine measurement so I partner with a caliper and it gives me the measurement. We each accomplish our purpose. But if I then use the caliper as a hammer, I am not respecting the nature of the tool and it will not cooperate with me in driving a nail.

If I have a small business that I need to market to others, I could partner with the Big Tech social networks to get the word out. I am willing, for example, to learn how best to use the tool to advertise my service. But (and this is based on the experience of people I know in this situation) is the social network an equal partner? Certainly not. In order to get the word out, I must continually seek the approval of the algorithm. It’s a never-ending series of tricks I have to pull—and we’re all familiar with what that looks like. In this case, I and the tool are not in an equal partnership. No matter how much I try to adapt myself to the demands of the tool, it will never adapt itself to my needs because it is designed according to machine logic, not human nature.

So to get back to one of David’s important questions: are tools inherently convivial, or is the conviviality in the use? He makes a useful distinction between tool and technology and use. Seek (to use his example, which I like because I also use it!) is an app that helps identify plants and animals. It is a tool based on the technology of artificial intelligence. The technology could be harmful while a tool based on it could be convivial—or even just my use of it. The distinction, I say, is useful because it allows or more nuance than a simple yes/no vote on any given tool.

It’s also useful—back to the animist framework—because relationship are similarly complex and require wisdom and judgment. I can partner with Seek in order to better name the beings around me, despite the face that Seek is part of a technology that is much more complex and fraught with potential abuse. I can use my own judgment to limit the partnership in such a way that no tools or the technology they embody exercise control over my creative activity. Some tools (hammers and calipers) are simple and require less judgment; some are more complex and require it.