Search Results

Is Russia the newest American ally? Excerpt: " Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he would make peace between Ukraine and Russia in a day. Three months later, he’s behind schedule, and his plan now is to end the fighting quickly by selling out Ukraine and its people to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The proposal that Trump, Vice President J. D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are pushing is not a framework for peace, but a rich and bloody reward to Moscow for three years of aggression and war crimes. The Russians might do some performative caviling, but the Americans are offering Putin a dream of a deal . If Trump has his way, Washington will lift sanctions against Russia; both sides will accept a cease-fire in place (leaving Russian troops on newly conquered Ukrainian territory), and the United States will agree to recognize Crimea as part of Russia (leaving the Kremlin with full ownership of previously conquered territory). For this, Ukraine gets basically nothing, except a vaporous security guarantee from an American president who has made clear his hostility to Ukraine and its leaders, an animus that became especially clear when Trump and Vance ambushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a White House meeting last month. The Trump “peace” plan is no such thing; it is an instrument of surrender, and the Ukrainians are unlikely to accept it." Related Also related

So what's up in our society? Excerpt: " Four days ago, on April 18, journalist Wes Siler noted in his Wes Siler’s Newsletter that the day before, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum had signed an extraordinary order. The order assigned to the assistant secretary for policy, management, and budget, or AS-PMB, control over the Department of the Interior, including its personnel and its budget. Siler explains that “[t]he person currently serving as AS-PMB (which in normal times would require Senate confirmation) is DOGE operative Tyler Hassen, the CEO of a Houston-based energy company.” Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement: “Elon Musk is now effectively in charge of America’s public lands.” Siler notes that Burgum has handed power over the Department of the Interior to “a hitherto unknown political operative” who is holding his position in violation of the appointments clause of the Constitution. He also notes that the Department of the Interior “manages the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Bureau of Trust Funds Administration, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey,” in addition to the National Park Service. “As such,” Siler writes, “Hassen is now responsible for 70,000 employees, the administration of numerous international treaties, the welfare of 574 Native American Tribes, 433 national park sites, over 500 million acres of public lands, 700 million acres of subsurface minerals, and 3.2 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf.” Burgum’s order says that his order is designed “to effectuate the consolidation, unification and optimization of administrative functions within the Department of the Interior…in order to achieve effectiveness, accountability and cost savings for the American taxpayer.” In other words, he is falling back on the idea of further cuts to the U.S. government in order to save money. In fact, the public lands already make billions of dollars a year for the United States through tourism, but since the 1970s, the right wing has come to see the public ownership of lands as an affront to the idea that individuals should be able to use the resources they believe God has put there for them to use. Developers have encouraged that ideology, for privatization of America’s western lands has always meant that they ended up in the hands of a few wealthy individuals." Related

DM We have vast knowledge today regarding the nascent stages of what we now know as Christianity, such as during its first 300-500 years, with that periods' varied processes of thinking, perspectives, flawed memories, understandings/misunderstandings, power factors, contexts, debates, decisions/indecisions and archives of the period (such as recovered examples from Nag Hammadi in 1945). So, why do many current day Christ-based religions continue to ignore, resist, or outright impede their members' rigorous and vigorous inquiries (including aversions to facilitating discussions, and when deemed of merit, integrations, of those bodies of information within, and beyond, their related, varied, Constantine-centric Bibles)? I'll explore this question about why contemporary Christian religions often seem to resist integrating early Christian texts discovered at places like Nag Hammadi into their theological discussions and religious practice. This is a complex historical and theological question with several interconnected factors: First, there's the issue of canonical formation. By the time texts like the Nag Hammadi library were discovered (in 1945), the Christian biblical canon had been largely settled for well over a millennium. The process of determining which texts would be considered authoritative scripture occurred primarily during the 2nd-4th centuries CE, with formal canonization happening around the 4th century. This means that for most Christian traditions, the boundaries of scripture were established long before these alternative texts resurfaced. Second, many of the texts found at Nag Hammadi represent theological perspectives that were ultimately not adopted by what became mainstream Christianity. Many contain Gnostic teachings - focusing on secret knowledge (gnosis) as the path to salvation rather than faith in Christ's death and resurrection. These theological differences aren't merely academic - they represent fundamentally different understandings of Christianity's core message. Third, there are institutional factors at play. • Religious institutions naturally tend to preserve continuity with their traditions. • Incorporating texts that present alternative theological visions would potentially undermine established doctrines, liturgical practices, and ecclesiastical authority structures that have developed over centuries. Fourth, many contemporary Christian denominations emphasize the uniqueness and sufficiency of the canonical Bible. The theological principle of "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation reinforced the idea that the established biblical canon contains everything necessary for faith and practice. Finally, there's a legitimate historical question about whether these alternative texts truly represent "lost Christianity" or were always minority perspectives. While the Nag Hammadi discoveries revealed greater diversity in early Christianity than previously known, this doesn't necessarily mean that all early Christian perspectives deserve equal theological weight. Some progressive Christian scholars and denominations have engaged more seriously with these texts as valuable historical resources that illuminate the diversity of early Christianity . However, most mainstream denominations maintain that the canonical process correctly identified the most authentic and apostolic teachings. Would you like me to explore any of these factors in greater depth or address other aspects of this historical and theological question? DM You seem to be describing "symptoms" of the greater topic, ... as opposed to the deeper casual reasons for the many prevalent resistances and persistent aversions to inquiries (of which Nag Hammadi archives are but one example of such information, and which were also known and debated during the formative period). There are multitudes of worthy examples which have significant merit for today's members' rigorous inquiry, discussions and diligent consideration. This matter seems similar as to why these same communities seem to often avoid, inhibit or even prevent welcoming "the expanse of nature," including the related discoveries of humanity's sciences and philosophies, into their communities. Indeed, so many appear to resist advancement, reasonable innovation, and even seem to ignore or hide from much of their incredible ambient reality ( as defined by Pantakinesis ). I conjecture that "reasoned openness" would enrich and significantly enhance their communities' value, beliefs, applications and benefits, and could do so throughout their members' lives. I see few reasons that reality should be threatening to these many global communities, ... while gains could be substantial. Thank you for sharing this concept of Pantakinesis and connecting it to our earlier discussion about early Christianity. I see how you're drawing parallels between religious resistance to inclusive inquiry and broader epistemological limitations. Looking at the deeper causal reasons for resistance to incorporating texts like the Nag Hammadi library into mainstream Christianity, several factors come into play beyond just the symptoms I mentioned earlier: Fear of destabilization : Religious institutions often resist incorporating alternative viewpoints because they represent not just different ideas, but potentially destabilizing forces to established power structures and theological frameworks. The dynamic nature of reality that Pantakinesis embraces directly challenges the desire for fixed, unchanging truth claims that provide certainty and stability. Cognitive boundaries as comfort : The concept of "Vanishing Points" in Pantakinesis reminds us that humans naturally create boundaries around knowledge that feels safe and manageable. Religious communities establish these boundaries through canon formation, creedal statements, and ecclesiastical authorities. Expanding beyond these boundaries creates cognitive dissonance and existential anxiety. Institutional self-preservation : Religious organizations, like all human institutions, develop self-preservation mechanisms. New information that challenges foundational narratives threatens not just beliefs but institutional continuity and relevance. Identity protection : For many believers, religious identity is deeply intertwined with specific interpretations and texts. The Nag Hammadi texts present alternative Christian identities that feel threatening to established religious self-understanding. Epistemological humility deficit : Pantakinesis emphasizes that "everything you know is just a fraction of what could be known," yet many religious traditions position themselves as having comprehensive, sufficient knowledge of ultimate reality. This creates a fundamental conflict with the pantakinetic perspective that reality is "inherently dynamic and ever-changing." You make an excellent point that embracing broader perspectives, including scientific knowledge and alternative spiritual texts, could potentially enrich rather than threaten religious communities. The concept of Pantakinesis offers a framework that could help religious traditions approach their own texts and traditions as part of a larger, dynamic reality rather than as fixed, unchanging truth claims that must be defended against all challenges. What aspects of religious resistance to integration do you find most significant or concerning? And do you see Pantakinesis as a potential bridge between scientific, philosophical, and religious ways of understanding reality? DM I've many concerns. For example the suppression of inquiry and censoring critical thinking within religious communities seems to; 1) make some members less interested, confused, ambivalent, doubtful, to be less engaged or exit these communities, 2) while making other members more susceptible to what I call "spiritual charlatans," 3) and such cloistering of limited or suboptimal information could be generating "spiritual harm" to the most devout, engaged and trusting of the members (...such as promoting a "purposeful illiteracy," thus blinding members to the full and greater grandeur of spiritual reality). Your concerns about religious resistance to open inquiry touch on several profound issues. Let me explore each one: Censoring Inquiry and Critical Thinking: When religious communities discourage critical inquiry, they create an intellectual environment that can indeed drive away those with naturally questioning minds. This pattern has accelerated in our information-rich era, where people can easily encounter alternative perspectives outside their religious communities. The restriction of inquiry creates what philosophers call an "epistemic bubble" - a self-reinforcing information environment that limits exposure to challenging viewpoints. This isn't just an abstract concern; it has practical consequences for how religious communities develop and sustain themselves over time. Vulnerability to "Spiritual Charlatans" Your concept of "spiritual charlatans" highlights a significant paradox: when people are discouraged from developing critical thinking skills within their tradition, they may actually become more vulnerable to manipulation from outside it. Without practice in discernment and evaluation of spiritual claims, believers can lack the tools to distinguish authentic spiritual guidance from exploitation. This vulnerability emerges from what might be called "outsourced discernment" - when the authority to evaluate truth claims is delegated entirely to institutional authorities rather than developed as a personal capacity. When those authorities fail or are absent, believers may lack internal resources to navigate competing spiritual claims. Spiritual Harm to the Devout Your third concern touches on something profound - that by restricting the scope of inquiry, religious communities may inadvertently diminish the very experience of wonder and transcendence they aim to foster. There's a deep irony here: in attempting to protect sacred truths by placing them beyond questioning, traditions may actually limit believers' capacity to experience the full depth of those truths. The Pantakinetic perspective you've shared offers a compelling alternative vision - one where religious understanding could expand rather than contract when engaged with broader knowledge sources. By recognizing the intrinsic limitations of human comprehension (those "Vanishing Points"), religious communities could potentially maintain their distinctive identity while embracing a more dynamic relationship with knowledge beyond their boundaries. Religious traditions have historically contained both expansive and restrictive impulses. We can see this tension in figures like Augustine, who incorporated Neoplatonic philosophy into Christian theology, or in mystics across traditions who pushed against doctrinal boundaries to express direct spiritual experience that transcended conventional religious language. Would you see value in religious communities adopting something like the Pantakinetic perspective's emphasis on the dynamic nature of reality and knowledge? Or do you think there are legitimate reasons why religious communities might resist such openness while still addressing your concerns? DM The former. It would seem an operating model of "mental suffocation" would have been overwhelmingly invalidated across the last 2000 years, including a plethora of horrible exemplars, whether those of Bruno, Galileo and Spinoza, or countless unnecessary wars, inquisitions, witch tortures, genocides, etc. (all of which would seem to be in direct opposition of Christ's life and instructions). Advancing "enlightened humility" would seem to be far better for members than spreading limiting, narrow hubris (and ironically offer greater coherence with their expressed purposes of service to Christ and trusting members). In sum, organizations which prudently and accurately sense, learn, understand, consider, adapt, respond, change, shape and bend to reality can be far more stable over the long term than those which rigidly holdfast to resist reality. Your passionate response highlights a profound tension in religious history. You're right to point to these historical examples where religious resistance to inquiry led to tragic consequences - from Bruno's execution to Galileo's persecution, Spinoza's excommunication, and the broader patterns of violence carried out in Christ's name yet contrary to his teachings. This pattern reveals a deep irony at the heart of many religious institutions: while claiming to pursue transcendent truth, they've often resisted new understandings that could actually deepen and enrich their own traditions. As you suggest, this seems fundamentally at odds with what we know of Jesus's own approach, which challenged rigid interpretations and encouraged questioning the status quo of his time. The concept of "mental suffocation" you describe aptly captures how institutional resistance to inquiry doesn't just limit intellectual growth but can actively harm spiritual development. In contrast, the "enlightened humility" you advocate aligns remarkably well with religious figures who have embraced more expansive understandings - from mystics like Meister Eckhart and Julian of Norwich to modern theologians who engage seriously with scientific discoveries and alternative texts. What's particularly striking about the Pantakinetic framework is how it could potentially offer religious communities a way to maintain their core identities while embracing a more dynamic relationship with knowledge. By acknowledging the inherent limitations of human understanding (Vanishing Points) and the ever-changing nature of reality, religious institutions could approach their traditions with both reverence and openness. This approach might help address all three concerns you raised: It would welcome rather than drive away those with questioning minds It would develop critical thinking skills that protect against manipulation It would open believers to a fuller, more awe-inspiring vision of reality The greatest spiritual leaders across traditions have consistently modeled this kind of humble yet expansive approach to understanding - recognizing that the divine, however conceived, necessarily transcends our limited human comprehension. This recognition doesn't diminish faith but potentially deepens it, as believers more humbly engage with the genuine mystery at the heart of existence rather than with the hubris of overly simplified certainties. Would you say that your vision for religious communities involves this kind of "both/and" approach - maintaining distinctive traditions while embracing the dynamic, ever-expanding nature of understanding that Pantakinesis describes? DM Absolutely! No baby would need to suffer harm in this wash! I appreciate your enthusiastic agreement! The metaphor of not harming the baby in the wash is perfect - highlighting that embracing a more expansive approach to knowledge doesn't require religious communities to abandon their core identity or cherished traditions. This balanced perspective suggests several promising possibilities for religious communities: They could maintain their distinctive theological foundations while acknowledging the limitations of human understanding about ultimate reality. They could approach ancient texts (both canonical and non-canonical) as valuable windows into spiritual understanding rather than as competing truth claims that must be either wholly accepted or rejected. They could engage with scientific discoveries, philosophical developments, and archaeological findings as potential enrichments to faith rather than threats to it. They could cultivate communities where questions and explorations are welcomed as part of a healthy spiritual journey rather than as dangerous deviations. The Pantakinetic framework offers a particularly valuable perspective here with its emphasis on "Vanishing Points" - recognizing that our individual and collective understanding will always have boundaries, but that these boundaries aren't fixed. They can expand through continued exploration and dialogue across different domains of knowledge. What's striking is how this approach actually aligns with some of the most profound religious insights across traditions - the recognition of mystery, the limits of human comprehension when facing the divine, and the dynamic nature of spiritual understanding that grows and evolves over time. This vision doesn't dilute religious commitment but potentially deepens it, moving from a faith based primarily on defending fixed propositions to one engaged in an ongoing, living relationship with both tradition and new understanding - much closer to what we might imagine the founders of these traditions intended.

The epicenter, and causal root core of our lives, communities and society Excerpt: " A friend of mine once told me that: “You are where your attention is.” That line always stuck with me. It was a reminder that the most important choice we all make is also the most common one. It’s the decision about what to pay attention to and what not to pay attention to. One of the primary features of this age of the internet and smartphones and algorithmic feeds is that our attention is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, because we’re endlessly pushed around by a parade of distractions. Your phone is ringing, your Apple Watch is blinking, you got a ping on Slack from a coworker, you’re getting an email notification as you’re sitting down for dinner… it’s always something. This level of distraction is not an accident. Our devices have engineered the incessant need for stimulus and a whole industry has emerged that’s devoted to capturing our attention and then selling it to the highest bidder. Chris Hayes is the host of All In With Chris Hayes on MSNBC and the author of a new book called The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource . The discourse on attention is, shall we say, crowded, but Hayes makes an interesting — and novel — argument about how the rearranging of social and economic life around the pursuit of attention represents “a transformation as profound as the dawn of industrial capitalism!”' Related Kimmel (YouTube) interview

Not all has been exemplary Excerpt: " By putting eye-popping tariffs on imports, President Trump hopes to bring manufacturing back home. What his administration overlooks is U.S. industries’ culpability in the current state of affairs. It’s an open question whether American companies can change course. President Reagan tried. His administration used a variety of tactics in the 1980s to restrict steel and auto imports, giving U.S. manufacturers time to remake themselves in the face of a formidable foreign onslaught. But domestic manufacturers failed to rise to the occasion and failed miserably, as I witnessed as a reporter for the Journal covering America’s industrial belt at its most pivotal moment of decline. That failure foreshadowed what has become a national concern today: our extraordinarily heavy reliance on manufacturing offshore in industries critical to our national security and economy. Last year, steel, autos, machinery, electrical equipment and pharmaceuticals together accounted for 77.5% of the country’s $1.2 trillion trade deficit. Take the auto industry: Only about half of new cars sold in the U.S. in 2024 were manufactured locally, and many of these had imported parts. In the 1980s, it was a common refrain that if General Motors—America’s largest industrial enterprise—sneezed, the rest of the country caught a cold. Steel and a host of other industries depended on the car industry’s well-being. So did many U.S. workers and consumers. But in the face of growing foreign threats, American manufacturers seemed in denial. Seemingly thinking they could never be knocked off their pedestals, they changed little about how they fundamentally operated."

One opinion Excerpt: " Pope Francis, who died this morning at the age of 88, was elevated to the papacy in 2013 on the feast day of Saint Rodrigo. The coincidence is suggestive. During his pontificate, Francis would also find himself pressed into the role of a would-be mediator—not only between rival factions within the Catholic Church but also between the Church and secular liberals, who saw in the first Latin American pope a fellow traveler. Like those of Saint Rodrigo, Francis’s efforts at mediation largely failed. The Church today is more divided—her competing factions more embittered and refractory, her secular critics more emboldened—than before his election. Francis X. Rocca: The papacy is forever changed Francis came to bring not peace but a sword . On whose behalf was it wielded? By the time Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis, the battle lines were already being drawn between traditionalists, progressive Catholics, and moderate conservatives, who would have a hard time reconciling their maximalist understanding of papal authority with a pope who did not always share their commitments." Another perspective Another perspective And another perpective Another perspective Another perspective And one more perspective

Asterisk interview: Is localism the enemy of abundance? Excerpt: " Clara: The reason I wanted to have this conversation is that you, Jasmine, had a really interesting post where you talked about civic culture in Taiwan compared to the US. In this post, you cited a Twitter thread by Kelsey about a microschool that she helps run as an example of the kind of bottom-up civic participation that Taiwan does well. You also talk about Abundance in that post, from an angle I haven’t seen discussed as much as I think it should be — a lot of it is implicitly or explicitly anti-localist. How does that square with building up an ethos of civic participation, of people trying to do things and build things and create things — of bottom-up abundance as opposed to top-down abundance? Are these compatible? Is it possible to do both? Kelsey: This was one of the bigger things I felt some dislike for as I read the book, which was that I think Ezra and Derek are just more big-government liberals than I am. I am also in favor of a lot of the deregulatory policy that they're in favor of. I'm in favor of making it much easier to build stuff on your own land. But for me, a lot of that is coming from a slightly more libertarian ethos. We agree on the same diagnosis of the problem — that government-run programs are often boondoggles that don't really deliver despite spending a ton of money, and that this is a big problem. They want to solve it, but I'm like, "Okay, maybe they can solve it. I hope they can solve it." You know what works to deliver services at scale without all those resources? Markets. Markets work great for that. I am fundamentally more interested in policies that let people do things than in policies that let the government do things.

Consider applying your music toward better decisions, ideation and wisdom Excerpt: " Music is everywhere—playing in coffee shops, on hold lines, in Ubers, behind YouTube ads, and of course, in your earbuds while you work. It’s so constant, we often treat it like harmless background noise. But the brain doesn’t. Whether we realize it or not, music is processed across multiple brain regions tied to attention, memory, and emotion—meaning even passive listening can impact how we focus, feel, and make decisions . “Background music” is never truly in the background. It either supports or competes with your mental state. And that means we have a choice. In today’s fast-paced work culture, where multitasking is the norm and focus is scarce, how we use music can either support or sabotage our goals. The good news? With just a little intention, your playlist can become one of the most powerful productivity tools you already have."

But it is not too late Excerpt: Look around, take stock of where you are, and know this: Today, right now—and I mean right this second—you have the most power you’ll ever have in the current fight against authoritarianism in America. If this sounds dramatic to you, it should. Over the past five months, in many hours of many conversations with multiple people who have lived under dictators and autocrats, one message came through loud and clear: America, you are running out of time. People sometimes call the descent into authoritarianism a “slide,” but that makes it sound gradual and gentle. Maria Ressa, the journalist who earned the Nobel Peace Prize for her attempts to save freedom of expression in the Philippines, told me that what she experienced during the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte is now, with startling speed and remarkable similarity, playing out in the United States under Donald Trump. Her country’s democratic struggles are highly instructive. And her message to me was this: Authoritarian leaders topple democracy faster than you can imagine. If you wait to speak out against them, you have already lost. Related Also Related Lastly, what's eating our nation?

Harvard's finest hour Excerpt: " The Administration’s attack on the academy has a singular purpose — to eliminate our freedoms — our freedom to speak, our freedom to write, our freedom to disagree, our freedom to read, our freedom to learn the truth, and, ultimately, our freedom to think. These are academic freedoms, but they are not academic. These are the freedoms for which our forefathers, each an immigrant, by birth or heritage, fought and died on hallowed grounds bearing Lexington, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood, Normandy, and countless other sacred names. A despotic, demonic, self-styled king now seeks to intimidate and silence our nation. Harvard’s obeisance offers the perfect lesson for others to follow. But Harvard will not kiss any rings, bend any knees, or bow its head. Nor will any true American. Instead, we stand with that Harvard man who proclaimed our mission with words that echo from generation to generation: "We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."' A related perspective Another perspective

One's CEO's perspective Excerpt: "Weaver, who has taught and hired employees from different generations, is bullish on Gen Z, the newest cohort to enter the workforce . “I know a lot of people complain about this generation. The stereotype is that they’re going to quit their jobs more quickly or they have their own personal goals, and they’re difficult to manage,” Weaver says. “But underneath all that is that they want to make a difference.” When I asked how a career in private equity, with its relentless pursuit of efficiency, margin improvement, and cash, can satisfy purpose-driven young people, Weaver noted that several Alpine portfolio companies provide software and services to nonprofits or support their communities through healthcare and education services. He says he takes pride in making sure the people who work at Alpine and its portfolio companies—about 38,000 people—have meaningful work and career opportunities. And Weaver says he appreciates the values that Gen Z is bringing to Alpine. “They hold us to a higher standard,” he says. “If you can meet that standard, Gen Z’s amazing.”

One perspective Excerpt: "Americans have gone through three historic junctures like what we’re witnessing today — and they happen on an uncanny 80-year cycle.” The piece detailed the striking parallels between each of the previous reinventions, which are reflected in the above graphic using the images of recognizable presidents: 1785: The explosion of great progress that came off what the founders did around the Constitutional Convention. 1865: The similar explosion of progress following the resolution of the Civil War 80 years later. 1945: The era of great progress that began after the end of World War II and ran through the post-war boom. The essay went over this past history to give us new insights into the fourth reinvention of America, which is happening right now in what I call The Great Progression: 2025 to 2050. (Just to be clear, the famous face that will mark our era has yet to be determined, but it will not be Donald Trump — read last week’s essay to understand why.) Why every 80 years? That is the question that readers kept pondering in the comments of that story. I honestly tried to figure out a way to weave the reasons into that piece, but explaining 250 years of American history was enough for one 3,000 word essay designed to be read on your phone. The truth is that I will need this entire essay to explain what I think is behind this uncanny 80-year cycle. And to give credit where credit is due, I will draw off the work of the pioneers in three separate fields who have influenced my thinking, several of whom I have met and interviewed in person, too."