casual conversation

Reading as Interaction, as Encounter. This is something I've been reflecting on, and which I wish had been shown/taught to me earlier.

I used to think of books as something like repositories. Of knowledge stuff, of stories, of experience.

And so reading was like a process of extraction. Extract entertainment, joy, information, knowledge. Get thee into the reading mines!

Note: this model of what reading is isn't wrong. It captures some important things, but it feels incomplete. And leads to bad pedagogy, I think.

---

Now I see reading as interaction.

A book (or piece of media, or person, or world) is no longer a static repository. It's a potential. 

What feels more important now is the reading itself, the whole process of encountering material and, well, meeting it. 

This feels like it opens up more possibilities. There are certainly uncountably many kinds or modes of encounter, but here's one that has been very rewarding: treating reading as conversation. How do I respond to this idea, this turn of phrase? What does it make me think of and feel? How am I implicated by this? What is it missing? What does it point me toward?

This makes reading different. Slower, in many ways, but more rewarding. I'm more engaged, and putting more of myself into the reading, which seems to result in getting more out of it.

---

This leads me to something I want. I want there to be recorded traces of readings (this is what notes/marginalia are, in a way), performances of reading.

The performance would not be like a poetry reading, restricted to just the text, but like a public performance of an individual's (or group's) live encounter – including thoughts/asides/etc.

I want this to exist for two reasons: (1) I wish I had learned about this way of reading much much earlier in my life. So having examples of this and venerating it might help more people encounter this way of reading sooner. (2) I want traces of past encounters, for historical reasons. I want to be able to see how my (or our) relationship to a text has changed over time. 

Monogamy v polyamory. Is monogamy better? Is poly better? Is there an overall norm for people, with exceptions? Is it totally pluralistic? Here are some points for monogamy, with some counter points, to convey some of my uncertainty but nevertheless leaning into what I’ve chosen:

• Point: I don’t know a single polyamorous couple that’s lasted more than a decade, whereas I know a ton of lifelong monogamous couples.
  • Counterpoint: many of the lifelong monogamous couples are not healthy relationships
    • Counter-counter-point: perhaps being in a lifelong commitment, even if the relationship isn’t ideal, is more healthy than being hyper-independent, especially as you get older. This runs right up against boundaries, how to know what to tolerate/love as is, when to leave, etc
• Point: The poly focus of attention tends to be the relationships themselves, often a kind of relational narcissism, rather than the relationship being a foundation for engaging the world in love (ironically). This is my version of the poly is impractical argument. Most of the people I meet practicing polyamory are constantly putting tons and tons and tons of life energy into their relational problems, and it seems like their relationships are often built around addressing these problems rather than enjoying life together. The fact that it takes so much time and energy points to something being a little off. Monogamous relating also takes energy but it usually seems less self-referential; they’re more often helping each other face and engage the world, rather than face and engage each other and their relationship.
  • potential counterpoint: You’re making a developmental point Jordan, not a mono/poly point. Most people practice poly from a Red ego-centric POV; most people practice sex from Red as well. If you practice from a genuine Green+ polyamory, this doesn’t happen.
• Point: Humans are largely monogamous; it’s instinctual
  • Counterpoint: How would we know if its cultural versus biological versus systemic versus psychological per person/family? it only takes a couple of generations of evolution to make massive physical changes, so even if it is biological, how could we know what’s possible for the future?
  • Counterpoint: people wanna fuck, especially dudes
  • Cheating, mistresses, polygamy, Sex at Dawn etc…
• Point: Many poly people avoid endings, boundaries, standards, and facing their own karma by just jumping from relationships to relationship. Sure monogamous people do too, but many of them end up getting married and that crucible forces them to face their stuff. Far fewer poly people get married, and when they do they can still use other relationships to avoid their shit
  • Counterpoint: we can use absolutely everything to avoid our shit.

there’s tons more, just want to get the convo started…

Anyone drinking molecular hydrogen rich water? A friend of mine bought a water bottle that turns regular water into hydrogen rich water. She’s been drinking this water for several months and swears by it. She says she has more energy, recovers easily from physical exercise, and her senses are heightened.

The water bottle is distributed by a MLM. I thought it was a new thing. But I researched and was surprised to see how popular molecular hydrogen rich water is.

I’ll usually an early adopter of stuff like this but I’m hesitant because the long-term effects are not known.

Is there anyone drinking this stuff? What has your experience been?