Does it count if you’re reading books on self-hypnosis and spend 20 minutes a day trying to climb a tree…

Comedy as a genre is about manners and morality. The direction of American comedy that you reference is what I refer to as “blockbuster comedy” and the story is typically about someone who is a loser/idiot/buffoon/jerk who has a singular (usually small) moral conviction and gets transformed into a hero who would die for their conviction and the character that it’s transformed them into and typically they have one last great idiot-scheme that highlights the heroism of their idiocy while elevating their conviction.

My favorite movies that highlight this arc are Tommy Boy, Happy Gilmore and Legally Blonde…I’ve written extensively (unpublished) on the genius of Legally Blonde - how Elle doesn’t need a makeover like in so many pettier female led comedies (Miss Congeniality, Princess Diaries) but instead goes through a moral transformation (like Cher in Clueless). A moral makeover, an idea I really love these days.

Anora is one of these comedies that cares more about style and petty laughter than realizing the goal of subconsciously inspiring or motivating the audience into embracing themselves the way they are (idiot/jerk and all), so long as they follow what they care about.

Each person deserves an outlet to express their humanity. For some women, this may be baking or sewing. For others, it may be the pursuit of a high art. Still, some may need the stimulation of working with a high volume of people or numbers. And others, like this author, need to criticize the choices of other mothers to find fulfillment outside of her children.

For me, a simple idea is that if life is but a dream, how do I live a life worth remembering when I wake up?

If you do not have some intellectual reasoning to mystical experience, or if you cannot divine a logic that guides you to understanding, it can drive you mad. We need to reason through our experiences so we know how to act, and what is right or wrong for us and impart that information to others so they do not needlessly suffer through spiritual psychosis or otherwise live bereft of spirituality. The belief systems we have derive from countless unnamed people who did the same.

Does anyone else think Wikipedia entries are getting too opinionated? Like, it doesn't feel like an encyclopedia anymore - it feels like people trying to play whack-a-mole with whatever they disagree with.

He’s the master for a reason.

Shakespeare, since his death, has in the throes of western civilization re-moralizing itself occasionally been raked through the coals for his “pagan” plays.

Pericles, Prince of Tyre is about a pagan prince cursed because he married a princess who had an incestuous relationship with her father. Pericles, his queen, and their daughter, the princess, are cursed.

The daughter is sold as a whore and keeps her virginity through stunning every John with sacred words. She eventually earns a job as a sacred dancer and singer in Diana’s name and keeps her purity. The family is miraculously reunited and the king forgives his father in law.

In Evangelion, the joke is made that Americans are "really concerned about their unemployment rate"...Is there a single American comedian who could make such an decent joke about the Japanese?

Man may not be able to prevent suffering, but if those who are able do not take upon themselves to protect, shelter, and comfort those who are suffering from further exploitation and violence, they fail both Krishna and Jesus Christ.

In many of Ovid's stories of transformation in the Metamorphoses, those who transform do so for protection. Is it a hopeless dream to believe that man can invent tools and even "authorities" (organizations of people) which protect people from exploitation and suffering? Is it wrong to believe that man can transform nothing into something which protects those who are less fortunate? To deny that possibility is, to me, an intolerable regression of the definition of the potential of the human spirit.

There must be some room for the evolution of language, else those without hands through deformity or maiming risk losing human rights, the same as the unborn risk not having rights until their hands are formed and perhaps functional…further, are our rights at stake when we lose function of our hands through injury or if we do not have function of our hands through disability? I thought the documentary Tell Them You Love Me was fascinating and it fits neatly into this discussion…ultimately those who can exercise serious reasoning must protect those without hands as we are discussing them and uphold protection.

As I have the house to myself, I had the idea to give Evangelion another try… https://youtu.be/fShlVhCfHig?si=EDHjflNR4wqw5xFa

Have you ever noticed any tension in your jaw?

I could relax more.

I’m getting more serious with my meditation practice. Went down the Buddhist book rabbit hole and came across the idea of the jhanas as a next step after a metta practice, read this article, and given some patience, miraculously entered the first jhana if only for a few moments…it is next level

I haven’t been this excited about Buddhism in a while

When I was applying to college, there was a policy at the time that if your grades were meritorious, you would be automatically accepted to the local state university (a world-prestigious system).

I like to believe I benefitted from this program because while my grades were excellent, my test scores well-above average, and my extracurriculars strong and personal, I was in a chaotic home situation where my desires about what I wanted to do with my life were undermined by my (undereducated and lower class) parents. Consequently, my admissions essay made no sense with my declared major and I'm pretty sure that barred me from the really good schools.

I did not have the life skills to "pull myself" up from my bootstraps and forge my own path. If that program did not exist, I could've very well ended up living under my parents' roof while struggling to "figure it out" in community college while working retail jobs. Instead I ended up living under my parents' roof while hard-committing to the advice of teachers to get "any" degree in four years from this world-class prestigious university while working retail jobs. Miraculously, I ended up studying exactly what I wanted to study and it still complements my day-to-day life.

If I'd gone with that first route, there's a high possibility that my chaotic home life would've thwarted my ability to actually earn a degree, or I would've been pushed into making greater and greater compromises about what and where to study. People who unilaterally complain about DEI programs have little appreciation for how much a home life (and wider context) can undermine and disturb a young person's potential. That program I likely benefitted from was dismantled years ago. Was it wrong for me to go to that university? Did I take the spot of someone who had "worked harder" for it?

I miss Tulsi. You can see how much simpler and plainer she is in her delivery - from my vantage point, Harris (and most establishment dems) are acting, like literally utilizing performance techniques.

I don’t think it’s inherently immoral for a public orator to study performance, but it’s not the job of a politician. And I’d say it personally endears me to Tulsi that much more.

Also, did you hear her sister was the one who found that white suit? Tulsi is just so America for me, literally the only politician I’ve so far seen in my life where I see her and think to myself “Wow, I want to be like her.” No theatrics, no stylists. Just herself.

Biden did talk about not trusting polls though, so maybe we’re onto something.

I think this is a fascinating example of a human-to-human “asymmetry of knowledge” problem: if the mothers had full knowledge of the situation, would they have consented?

I’m beginning to wonder if “asymmetry of knowledge” is the best ethical ground to call for better regulations in medicine and technology and who knows, government and even education reform - what puts the safety of the consumer/citizen first? How do you protect the many from the actions of one?

There’s a lot of grayness in terms of the morality of this particular situation. However, I wonder if the implied threat to abandon the children based on the mothers’ behavior is any indication of his true magnanimity.

I saw elsewhere in the thread the topic of media came up…I was thinking today, the movie Chicken Run might be a good suggestion for parents who want their children to grow up questioning authority. It’s literally got one chicken who convinces the other chickens to fight for their lives :)

What do you think are the most important lessons they learn from these programs? What do you think is lacking?