The Invisible Ink of Generosity

Most cooks cook to be cooks cooking, not for eaters to eat.

Most musicians play to be musicians playing, not for listeners to hear.

Most writers write to be writers writing, not for readers to read.

Most speakers speak to be speakers speaking, not for listeners to hear.

Most helpers help to be helpers helping, not for the helpless to be helped.

Most lovers kiss to be lovers kissing, not to leave their beloved feeling kissed.


This is the deeper truth beneath the surface posturing. Of course, we'd all claim to cook for eaters, play for listeners, write for readers, and so on. But to make it real—immediate, visceral, and effective—requires a flip of perspective. We must tap a flow of generosity from our most inhibited well and tend it diligently. Otherwise, it's just something we say we do.

I've always preferred food that was cooked to be eaten, music played to be listened to, writing written to be read, and to be kissed by kissers kissing, specifically, me. And this need for custom treatment made me seem like a needy narcissist—or at least an impossible-to-please pain in the ass. Though, looking back, I think I gave as I hoped to get.

But I've been trading in a foreign currency. Few notice this kind of generosity, or appreciate custom-tailoring. It's like writing in invisible ink. They may have enjoyed my output, but couldn't perceive the intent. So, in their framing, I was, indeed, demanding rather than reciprocal. And their assessment of me was fair.

I hesitate to point out that this is also the unsurpassed route to great results. The problem is that if you follow my advice out of that ambition, your generosity will disappear. Karma Yoga is the way (here are all postings tagged for that).


See also "Desperately Parched for Surprise".

Sisyphus Redux

Sisyphus gets just a bit better at rock pushing every time. He lacks for nothing.

Epiphanies and Giggles

My effort to define reframing cheated a little. I focused on the big, disruptive kind that is easy to spot. Macro-reframing. But we also micro-reframe.

Micro-reframing is unremarkable, fading into daily life. A small shift might spark a giggle; a stronger one, genuine surprise. There’s a whole continuum well short of epiphanies and tectonic pivots.

If we never wiped the slate by macro-reframing, life would be pure monotony. If we wiped constantly, we’d be too disoriented to survive. Instead, we seem to strike a sweet spot: enough micros to keep things lively, and enough macros to keep things fresh. If this sounds exactly like the rules of storytelling, that's correct. You might substitute "plot twist" for reframing.

It’s the same process whether outcomes seem huge or tiny. The only difference between macro and micro reframings is in the "seeming", as determined by our familiar faculties of thought and feeling. Our brains, as usual, comment. Categorize. Scream. Giggle. Audience reactions may vary, but that's all in the interpretation.

Because it’s all the same free process, we could, in theory, macro-reframe constantly. But the psyche needs continuity, so surprise must be meted out sparingly.

Since I explained reframing by using meta-framing—gasps and eurekas—as examples, further explanation is necessary of what framing actually is.

Here’s my proposal: we reframe constantly, though we fail to notice because it’s so innate (and impossible to measure given that it subsumes all experience). Micro-reframing generates the experience of time, movement, and change, much like a film projector.


Epilogue: When cognition and emotion—hearts and minds—react to reframing, the sense of micro vs macro is, I said, an interpretation. But since we'd previously defined reframing itself as a matter of interpretation, what we're doing is really meta-interpretation.

"Interpretation of interpretation" may sound complicated, but it isn't. Literary criticism, after all, is the interpretation of an interpretation, and it doesn't seem very fancy at all.

What is Reframing?

In all these years, I've never tried to define reframing (aka perceptual shift).

We traverse our world via a familiar cognitive cocktail of calculation, emotion, and inclination. We navigate familiar terrain in familiar ways, comfortably interpreting and contributing to the storyline as we go.

There are moments, however, when perspective fundamentally shifts. Our interpretive process is abruptly interrupted by a profound reinterpretation—a "reframing"—and suddenly the whole scene feels different.

It's a common enough experience that we have terms for it, such as epiphany, eureka, and inspiration. It is utterly disruptive to the storyline—more like glaring house lights switching on than another turn in the plot line.

It's notoriously futile to try to pinpoint the source of such shifts, which seem to stem from—and to reveal—another reality.

Examples:

• Forgiveness doesn't work as a process. It is only effective via an instantaneous pivot of interpretation. It's not a matter of laboriously rewiring emotions. Interpretation is painlessly shifted and profound emotional changes follow.
• We wake from a terribly gripping dream, and blithely walk into the bathroom to pee. And we somehow do so blithely!
• A friend makes outrageous accusations, and we respond with anger until we notice a syringe and hard drugs on his shelf, whereupon we *instantly* shift to concerned sympathy.
• In the blink of an eye, we realize we'd misunderstood something, and feel immense satisfaction as pieces fall into place and confusion is expunged. It’s like a whole new world. 

Reframing wipes the slate.

If that explanation was too florid for you, try this more dryly scientific one:

Reframing, or a shift of perspective, occurs when our normal cognitive processes—calculation, emotion, and instinct—are abruptly interrupted by a sudden and fundamental reinterpretation, seemingly arising from mysterious faculty.

Unlike ordinary incremental changes in thought, reframing disrupts, akin to abruptly switching on bright lights in a dark room, dramatically transforming the "narrative" we perceive ourselves to live through.

This shift often feels externally-sourced (epiphany, inspiration, etc.) because it arises from beyond our habitual mental framework to reset or transform the assumptions of that framework.

As examples, we wake from a vivid dream into ordinary reality without hesitation; we instantly shift from anger to sympathy upon new contextual information; we feel an almost consuming sense of clarity when confusion resolves.

In essence, reframing resets our "context."

---

The revelation is that you own this faculty. An endless abundance of insight becomes available as you recognize that reframing is like a smart phone feature you've overlooked. As you play with it, you'll find that the world doesn't force framings on you. It's all about how you frame things. This is how a nightmare is transformed into a lucid dream.

How does framing relate to consciousness?
Who actually frames?
A richly fleshed-out and relatable example of the extreme potential of reframing.
A less relateable but even more extreme example of reframing.
How can I learn to frame more intentionally?
Where does this all lead?

Insights from reframing:
A new theology.
A new cosmology (series of posts).
A new theory on human happiness.
A new explanation of autism
A quick-start guide for would-be messiahs.
A way to bottle Inspiration's lightning.

Also, fresh explanations for Art, Creativity, God, Autism, Addiction, Depression (here and here), Spirituality, and Self-Destructiveness. Also: more on Forgiveness.


In fact, much of this Slog either explains reframing, explains what you can do with reframing, or demonstrates the insights a reasonably intelligent jazz trombonist/food critic can come up with via lithe reframing (plus a dedicated meditation practice). It's like a magic trick!

None of it was showing off. I've shared every secret so you can do the same, hopefully better than I did. I haven't held back a thing.

My Dinner with Freddy

So I was having a conversation with Freddy Krueger the other day, talking about how we both just hate it when horribly disfigured people show up out of nowhere to mutilate us with knives, chain saws, etc.. Freddy told me a story about something that happened to a neighbor of his last summer. Ugh. Just awful. Anyway, he suggested investing in a good security system. Sucks to have to spend the cash, but what can you do.

I later recounted the conversation with a pal who seemed upset. "Wait! Freddy Krueger? You realize that he, himself, is a mutilating monster, right?"

I told him that, yeah, I know Freddy's reputation—though he's always been decent enough with me. But my pal was very distressed. "This is not good, Jim. This is not good at all!"

And the strangest thing happened. In his agitation, scalpels kept falling out of his pockets. His jacket pocket, his pants pockets, the cuff on his pants. They all fell to the ground, glinting brightly in the sun, several handles caked in blood. While he continued to warn me about the folly of discussing monstrousness with bona fide monsters, he absent-mindedly gathered up the blades and tucked them back into their pockets, without a word of explanation.

Weird, no?

So I ask you nice people—we're all good people, am I right?—whether I ought to refrain from talking to....

Oh.

OH.

Never mind.

---

This is the creepy loop I experience when discussing narcissism with people. With whom, exactly, am I confiding? Fervid agreement is easily elicited while (metaphorical) chainsaws power up.

Dumbing Down Eleanor

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt


We’ve devolved considerably, so this is in need of update:

Small minds discuss what pisses them off—mostly stuff they themselves do.

Average minds discuss what pisses them off—stuff they mostly don’t do.

[Nobody discusses people; that would require paying attention to others.]

Great minds discuss events.

[Nobody discusses ideas; if someone did, we’d scroll past it so hard that it would be effectively invisible.]

At Last an Explanation for Russian's Incursions into Poland and Estonia

Finally, an intelligent explanation for Russia's incursions into Poland and (today) Estonia. Everyone's been calling it "testing", but that's another way of saying "I have no idea".

Former NATO representative to Russia, John Lough, said on UK's Times Radio on Youtube today that the Russians are trying to push neighboring countries (and their Nato allies) into increasing their defenses, leaving fewer funds for them to aid Ukraine's defense.

It's getting harder and harder to hear real news even if you seek it out with insatiable curiosity. But, finally, here it is.

Another Perspective on Charlie Kirk

Many of my writings last week on Charlie Kirk's murder started out ala "Let's not celebrate the death of this asshole".
 
My characterization was based on quotes and sound bites I'd been reading along along, and which people on the right insist were used horrendously out of context. And perhaps I've been spun. Perhaps we've been spun.

I never close the door to the possibility that I've been spun. Especially now, as extreme partisanship turns darker and inexorably violent. It's far easier to be spun when you're mad. And it's impossible to avoid being spun when no one out there is shooting straight. Truth is a casualty, and that's upsetting for me, because I like truth better than my own opinions. I like truth even when it makes me look bad.

The following was written by a friend of Andrew Tobias, one of my favorite writers and longtime DNC treasurer. To describe Tobias as anti-MAGA would be putting it mildly. But because I emulate Tobias both in my writing and in my (partially successful) efforts at intellectual integrity, I'll reprint this part of his column below.

None of it denies that Kirk had opinions many of us would find wrong, unpleasant, offensive, awful. But those adjectives describe opinions, not a person. That distinction, in 2025, is in desperate need of reinforcement.

You are almost entirely wrong in your characterization of Charlie Kirk. I knew him personally very well. He visited my home and office multiple times. I’ve given repeated donations to his Turning Point USA. He’s been in my office and home to speak with delegations of interested, intelligent, politically active people to discuss how to build a better future for all Americans.

Charlie Kirk was a loving person. He was not a violent person. He believed in and practiced free speech. He let his debating partners have their say and ask him any questions. He was civil and sought out rational dialogue with those with whom he disagreed.

Charlie knew I was gay; no big deal. He had other gay friends, donors and employees. He also knew that I was not Christian and he had many non-Christian friends, donors and employees as well. He had friends, donors and employees of every color and many nationalities as well.

Charlie had a positive vision for individuals and for America: it could be summarized as: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Charlie was a constitutionalist. He was a devout Protestant Christian. I respect all of those beliefs and traits. He was also entrepreneurial, charismatic, a great family man and very humorous.

Charlie was not a hater. He was not violent. He was anti-fascist, meaning he believed in individual liberty and limited government. He loved that the American ideal was small government and big citizens. He was very kind. He was not racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, or any of the other charges leveled by his leftist antagonists.

He was, however, very effective, and that’s why the organized leftist power structure didn’t like him.

The snippets you have cited are mostly taken out of context, deeply misleading, or just plain wrong. I wish you could’ve known Charlie Kirk as well as I did. You and he would’ve disagreed on many political policy issues, and that’s fine. I also think you and I disagree on many public policy issues, but I still would consider you a friendly acquaintance, a very kind person, a valued classmate and a wonderful human being.

The world is deeply worse off because of his political assassination. I hope you and others will read his work more deeply and come to understand the wonderful human being that he was. Try with something easy – read his new book about observing the Sabbath which will be published posthumously. Charlie learned about Shabbat from Dennis Prager, a non-Christian.

I would urge a bit more grace and compassion for his ideas as well as those that you hold dear. We each have important things to say, we all believe things somewhat differently. We need to show more tolerance and greater respect for people with different ideas (expressed with respect and civility) rather than demonizing others so harshly.

Alan Sepinwall

TV critic Alan Sepinwall, who I frequently quote and link to for coverage of our "peak TV" era, was fired from Rolling Stone.

Please consider a paid subscription to his Ghost account (it's like Substack), which I'm confident he'll cram full of value.

In fact, for us—if not for him—this could be a good thing. It brings him back to his blogging roots, engaging with a smart community, before he began publishing from a glossy media perch.

Prequel

Dear Democrats, Republicans, Israelis, and Palestinians,

The fact that the other group is terrible does not justify your being terrible.

---

I can't listen to Israeli or Palestinian arguments anymore. It's always the same willful blindness: "Your last atrocity was a snapshot, frozen in time and without context. We merely responded, justified by long history and deep grievance."

America is looking more and more like the prequel.

Them and You; You and Them

Just because everyone seems to be flamboyantly complaining, raging, and/or grieving about what they're "going through", you should by no means get the impression that anyone would possibly give a fraction of a genuine crap about what you're going through.

If you know any kids, show them this. It's a synopsis of the missing instruction manual for the adult human world, and it will spare them decades of confusion.

Amusing and horrifying example

Brian Lagerstrom's YouTube Cooking Videos

I really like Brian Lagerstrom's cooking videos. He goes fast and breezy, but he develops the bejesus out of his recipes. Always some really smart twists I'd never seen before, but it's not just flashy shtick.

He'll use expedient ingredients and methods when he can get away with them, because he's not trying to set a high tone, but also tells you when to splurge. He doesn't pretend everything's easy just because it's easy for him (i.e. he tells you when to really pay attention and slows down the action so you know what to watch for).

While you can easily follow the general shape of his recipe without sweating the specifics (incorporating his hacks and twists), he also offers more precise info re: quantities and timings than most for people who are into that.

A lot of YouTube chefs go for a vibe, while Lagerstrom's 100% about results - yours, not his. Nary a nanosecond serves him; it's all for you.

Check out his NYC Pizza video and his shrimp scampi video.

21st Century America in a Nutshell

21st Century America in a nutshell:

Morality doesn't matter when you're super mad. And we're always super mad. And it's glorious.

The Omens

For over ten years I've wondered why, why, why don't moderate Republicans constrain their extremists, who've gone so far off the deep end? Why don't they say something? Do something?

And now with virtually everyone I know applauding political assassination, I'm saying and doing in the mirror universe. While I knew to expect rage and contempt, this time I feel like I'm on dangerous ground. Like maybe I should keep my voice down. Even from all the way here in Portugal. Something broke this week.

Moderate Republicans haven't spoken out all this time because they don't like being told to go fuck themselves, and they eschew personal endangerment. Easier to go along. Same for my temporarily insane friends who've suddenly decided a reasonable penalty for unsavory beliefs is violent death (I saw this coming in 2016).

For a long time, it was a lopsided assymetry, mostly because the Right was in power, and they had a personality cult to rally around. But the Left's applause of political violence this week has been like focusing a set of binoculars. Both lenses are now sharp and clear. The omens, it seems, are being fulfilled.

A Very Bad Week for Civilization

Nearly all my smart and reasonable friends are cheering political violence. This is a very bad week for civilization.

I'm actually agitated. I've been handling extreme turmoil (not just health) with calm gratitude. I really don't do agitation. But now I'm agitated. Consider me your canary in this coal mine.

The Left's reaction to Charlie Kirk is a drastic turning point, and they don't realize it. To them, it's just Friday. But for their hated and preferred-dead "enemies", they've just fulfilled the bullshit characterizations ascribed to them all these years by FOX, OANN, Alex Frigging Jones, and the rest of those mendacious goons. If you thought we enjoyed some padding between the current moment and a tipping point to civil war, look around you and behold nothing.

I try to make friends see it, but they rage at me (extremists hate sympathizers worst of all) or else blink hard and struggle to parse what I'm even talking about. We're just doing our thing! Fighting the fight! Manning the garrisons! What are you so freaked out about?

For them, it's all performative playtime—including, now, assassination. That's quite an expansion pack.

---

"I don't support political violence, but he brought it on himself" is not good enough. To quote a Facebook friend who prefers anonymity (sharing my feeling that this is a very dangerous moment):

"She said Prohibition was bad and didn't work, so it's pretty ironic and funny that she got killed by an angry drunk swinging around a broken bottle! Serves her right!"

"He thinks cars are a net good, so when someone runs him off the highway with a semi-truck, I guess that's just part of the cost of doing business, no sympathy."

"She told people that plane crashes don't mean we should stop flying planes, so it's actually fine that the missile intercepted her as she flew across the country."

This line of reasoning is not reasoning. It is an attempt to convert a cognitive dissonance into an easy snark that lets you feel smug about your sense of irony instead of being something you *should* have to sit with and think about, something that makes you uneasy with your sense of tribalism.

Doctors and the DMV

Fun! I just met with a new doctor, who spent a full hour going over my myriad medical issues. The six severe orthopedic conditions requiring immediate surgery which I'm managing via yoga. The severe ulcer from aspirin therapy + a series of profound gut infections; the osteoarthritis; the torn plantar plates which can prevent me from walking, the benign paroxysmal positional vertigo that keeps me dizzy, the exposed dental nerves I feebly manage with OTC pain cream. The pericardial effusion (like the one that killed my mom) which has left me hoarse and coughing, the 50% hearing loss, the vitreous detachment, the stent. The periarthritic calcified shoulders which, when bad (they're never great), send me into seizure from the pain. We discuss each in detail. Then she looks up from her monitor and asks "So how do you feel?"

"Pardon?"

"How do you feel, just going through your day? Any pain?"

I stare darts at her. She peers back, composed and crisp.

I begin to repeat my symptoms, and she interrupts to repeat: "But how do you feel?" I did not commit medicide. I got through it, somehow. But I went home and asked chatGPT to explain why the world seems insane (this time).

It replied, essentially, that she has a field to fill out in her report which requires choosing smiley-face patient, normal-face patient, or frowny-face patient. So, like a clerk at the DMV, she just needs me to give an answer so she can finish filling it out.

I'm beginning to understand the appeal of quacks and pseudoscience.

Power

My father—like a lot of fathers until about twenty five years ago, when most chose to be their kids' empowering, enabling, and emotionally uplifting best friends, averse to tarnishing their own lofty self image via unpleasant friction from hardened stances, irrespective of the entitled, deluded little humans they inflicted upon the world—was a bit of a tyrant.

Nothing awful. But he leaned into it sometimes. When a certain type of person notices power in a relationship, it's sugar to be devoured rather than medicine to be rationed with mature prudence. A house full of kids reliant for food and shelter seems like a captive audience; an experimental laboratory; a flattering array of shiny mirrors.

It was mostly tolerable. He was not a bad man, so he made real effort to constrain his considerable fury. And, per above, "yes, and..." might be a great way to do improv comedy but it's no way to raise kids. But he could get a tad drunk on petty power, and I found it scary to have no means of constraining him. An eleven year old may be immature, but he's not larval. He's a person. And those who bear power should bear in mind that personhood under unchecked authority is a harrowing experience.

I sensed that there might be a magical statement I could break out under particular duress, but couldn't quite articulate it. It seemed to radiate toward me, amid much static, from my elder self as a message in a bottle (not surprising, because I was at the same time sending messages forward to that same elder self, many of which I've cataloged here). It was tantalizingly close at hand, but I couldn't make out the words.


In one's 60s, one re-processes one's childhood issues and confusions. And, as I do so, I find myself imagining saying this to my father:

Our roles will flip. You will decline, and may require my help and support. The dependency curve will reverse. You imagine you have unchecked authority, but your actions have consequences. Never forget that the tables will turn, and that I will remember.

Because I can be slow and foggy, it took a few years for me to realize that my occasional repetition of this polished spell was like a radio beacon broadcasting who-knows-where in time and space.


Anyone feeling powerless might take heart from that same broadcast. Tables turn. Dependencies flip. Your day will come.

Worship

A guy I know came to me for expert help. As I explained things to him, he kept interrupting. He argued, detoured, and frequently interjected that he KNEW THAT—even when he obviously didn't. He tried incessantly to seize control of the process of being helped. "I've got this!" was his message, even though he'd come to me for guidance.

This seemed counterproductive but not unfamiliar. This is why adults are notoriously unable to learn. They'd rather remain ignorant, feeling like they know stuff, than concede deficiency and accept knowledge.

But this isn't about learning.

To me, it doesn't seem like a major "ask" to insist that people seeking help calm down and take a note without injecting fountains of sputtering chaos. But I forget how tenaciously people cling to the pose of "I've got this". They don't even realize they're posing. Their daft sense of assurance feels soldered to their circuit boards—inseparable from their sense of self. Remove this assurance and there'd be little left. At most, a jiggling, wriggling, vulnerable mass of larvae.

To shut up for a moment and take in information—without feeling wrecked by the power imbalance or humiliated by the self-suspension—would feel like self-evisceration. Asking someone to drop the act and suspend the bluster is like asking them to prostrate and adoringly kiss your feet. You are demanding, essentially, worship.


It always puzzled me that saints and gurus and gods and even Jehovah himself would be so haughty and demanding. How odd that they'd want tribute paid, prostration performed, and fealty sworn, as if to some Pashtun warlord. It hardly seems divine! Why would God and His facilitators require worship?

They don't! But the requirement to drop posing and open up feels debasing. And to cultivate sincerity feels denuding. That's what people mean when they talk about worship.