Film Journal 2024: Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 1
Directed by Kevin Costner

Horizon is essentially taking an episodic format and giving it a cinematic mold to play within. Whatever one ultimately thinks of this grand experiment I think you have to admit the risk is bold, intriguing and, in my opinion, ultimately worth seeing how it plays out.

Here is what is most interesting to me: I am personally not the biggest fan of episodic series/television. For me, series/television is driven by storytelling while cinema is driven by theme and form by their natures, and I resonate far more with the latter than I do with the former. More to this point, the audience I saw it with were clearly there on the basis of their investment in Yellowstone. What they were finding on screen was resonances that played off of this sense of familiarity, and from what I could gauge it was working for them. It is edited like a series, it is basically 3 hours of set up to what will ultimately be the equivalent of a 9 episode saga, and it has the tone and feel of the series, albeit on a bigger scale, at least based on the little I know of it.

Me? I was there because I was excited for a return to a seemingly long dead genre- the old fashioned western steeped in practical set pieces, grand mythologies, vistas, and period recreations. So how did it work for me on this front? A bit of a mixed bag, but overall I enjoyed it. It features a dynamic score, a few thrilling and prolonged action sequences, and lots of interpersonal drama. When I say lots, there are a LOT of characters here representing different factions that all gradually converge as the story moves forward.

It’s tough to make a true analysis of part 1 since it is all set up with little to nothing in the way of conclusion. But what we do get was enough to leave me hopeful that the cinematic  vision will bear out something thematically when all three films are released. The film ends on what is basically a prolonged trailer for the next films. And it looks exciting. Certainly enough to hook me into coming back for more.

For those who think this should have just released as a series, I’ll offer this. I do think all the people who dug Yellowstone, which is quite a few, would have really dug this as a series. Going the route of three films helps reach people like me. And I have to imagine this thing will eventually find fresh legs on streaming down the road. Going this route not only allows it a chance to earn some money, it gives it that extended lifespan later on with the streaming money. I think the inevitable headlines that will come out calling it a box office failure are going to fail to take all this into consideration. It might still be a risk, but I think it has some decent theorizing and potential behind it. And more importantly it’s a decent first installment to see in theaters.

Reading Journal 2024: Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions
Cass R. Sunstein (editor), Martha C. Nussbaum (Editor)

There are a handful of topics, ones that represent particular convictions, leanings, or  preferences in my own  life and understanding (relating of course to the desire for knowledge and truth) that have consistently left me isolated in conversation with others. This is mostly because they are topics that, in my experience, tend to evoke genuine anger and ire in social contexts. Some of these topics are ones that I still speak to, others I rarely to never do. The subject of animal rights/welfare, especially where it pertains to Christian theology, is in the rare to never camp. Too many bad experiences and too many obstacles when it comes to being deemed everything from a heretic in christian circles to a liberal nut and quack in non-religious, secular circles.

This is a rare occasion, given that I do tend to review everything I read. Thus my thoughts on Cass Sunsteins (editor) book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. Its an older book, written in 2004, but I also think much of the philsophical, systemic and social challenges being addressed are still just as relevant today.

Loved how it is structured. Early on the authors talk about how the only  adequate  way to approach what is a highly controversial and sensationalized issue is to begin at the beginning and move forward one step and one issue at a time. Jumping into the middle, or worse the conclusion, will just ensure that what you want to say won’t be heard. And that is exactly how this book is structured, following the logical unfolding of the natural argument and moving step by step, beginning with the obstacles that any discussion of animal rights must overcome, and ending with a call to redefine and move towards a true global justice.

The authors are clearly writing from the perspective of a strict materialist. This has both positive and negative affects when it comes to detailing the strength of the argument. On one hand, the author is able to demonstrate the limits, restraints and demands of a faithful argument from materialism. This includes calling out the many irrational components of popular level and emotionally charged responses to the issue. The argument being made here sees good reasons to move towards a greater view of global rights, and the way this is argued for is probably one of the books greatest strengths, but it does so within the parameters of what it sees to be a reasonable assessment of logic and reality. It is well argued and well reasoned… to a point. A negative component for me would be the sweeping caricature the authors afford religion and religious history. Religion is described as one of the obstacles up front, and it is established that this book is arguing for animal rights from a non-relgious perspective. But the obstacle that is described doesn’t actually reflect the reality of religious development, and certainly not the Christian Tradition that tends to be its primary target. If anything, what is being tackled on this front is a westernized version of Christian theology. I’m all for healthy critique of Augustine, whom makes an appearance here, but if that’s your whole understanding of Christian history then whatever thoughts you might have on its role in animal rights should be taken lightly. More so, I think what becomes more glaring later on is an inate inability to allow the parameters of the argument to be its own critique of the limitations of a materialist approach to the subject. Indeed, I would press back hard on the assessment that religious thought and practice opposes animal rights. I find quite the opposite to be true, especially when we understand it’s development in its own world rather than imposing our own back on to it. I personally actually found a purely materialist argument to be the biggest hindrance for me in terms of upholding a view that all life matters equally, which would be my personal conviction.

So what is the basic progression of thought here? The authors begin with the basic assertion that the interdependence of society on nonhuman animals makes it impossible to live outside of that (p20). Perhaps the biggest example of this would be that we owe our present lifespans and quality of life and commitment to progress to a certain hierarchal view of the world in relationship to humanity. And even broaching this basic fact means confronting the many obstacles to mutual discussion, with perhaps the biggest wall being how to apply it universally. Any viewpoint that tries to build an argument for equality around the exclusion of certain species is going to run into a dead end.

It then jumps straight to a point that will become an operative factor of the argument as it progresses- why do we respond to abolition and not the fundamental reality of animal suffering, which is far bigger in scope? There will be multiple points that will come into play here
– Because definitions of suffering is designed in a way to compartmentalize the suffering of non-human creatures.
– Because we have been made aware of the suffering that abolition addresses
– Because we have been raised in a society with a particular worldview
– our economy, livelihoods, and some would argue life depends on turning a blind eye or convincing ourselves of a different reality

And yet the simple facts are this: all life is capable of suffering, and the exact same reasons people used to uphold slavery is used to justify the present state of animal rights (which is completely dysfunctional at best) as a matter of capacity and potential.

Legally persons count, things don’t. And at the moment there is only two categories- the wild, and property/ownership. And the wild is subservient to particular human needs and prosperity. Which all leads to the problem of speciesism, because in reality even humans can be deemed property in this way.

Here the authors make another hard statement: to avoid the problems of speciesism we must come up with a singular definition that can define all persons as human and distinguishes it from all others. And yet, as they say, none exists (p27). This is of course from a materialist perspective, and also a point where they will see religion as an obstacle that says there is such a defintion and applies it in particular ways that are damaging. But that is hugely reductive. The point here, more so, is to suggest that in material terms there are a variety of humans that have the functional capacities of animals that have no rights. This poses a gross inconsistency and logical fallacy when it comes to upholding speciesism as  grounds for exclusion.

The writers do suggest a common definition of practical autonomy, which can apply to all species that have it. If non human and human examples don’t have the ability to liberty, claim, or power, they can be the recipients of immunity that comes from practical autonomy. The way they work towards this is by challenging some of the typical ways we argue for exclusion, such as distinguishing between volition (self determination) and instinct, or self conscious and consciousness. Consciousness (differentiated from self conscious) and sentience are assumed in a theory of practical autonomy.

One of the biggest obstacles here is a mix of function, culture and philosophy. In truth, all manners of assumptions are made regarding matters of consciousness and volition when we don’t really know. But the end result is that functional rights (and lack of them) still exist even with that absence of true knowledge. And they become normalized, and they become fact, and they often control life and death.

Things then become more complex. What about responsibility? We have certain responsibilities but are not responsible for the welfare of all. This becomes a natural stepping point into speciesism, because if we function this way with fellow persons, then all the more so with animals. To a certain degree animals can be deemed to be responsible for their own welfare, but we deem this as instinctual P312). A part of nature. But how do we account for the slaughter of other creatures while deeming humanity different? Again, here we tend to lean on the difference between instinct and volition. For example, if a dog bites, the law is designed according to affording it no basic right to life (the number of dogs killed in this light is inumerable). An at risk child is taken into the care of the system for such similar harms due to there being a mandated right to life. It becomes morally right to kill a dog and morally wrong to kill a child. That’s for domesticated ownership. When it comes to livestock for example, or wild animals, the key questions revolve around what it does to humans economically as well.

The authors take the approach here of arguing for a capabilities approach (a lion who needs to kill to satisfy a predatory need can be considered flourishing, while killing can also be deemed wrong- positive-negative distinction). But the problem here emerges when you start to allow for humans to be categorized as animals. What about self defense? Survival? Where and how do we justify moves to supersede our predatory natures? Our tribal natures? Matters of the ecosystem fall into the same category, or whether we can argue for or against extinction of any kind on a logical level. But  we apply such things very inconsistently.

Here it starts to get into the nitty gritty:
– Moral responsibility is tied to contractualism… further, what is deemed acceptable is tied to being informed, but we are also battling something more fundamental- beliefs that interpret this information.
– Darwinism as a functional conundrum: if we are all animals, does this mean we are equally worth less or equally worth the same, and how do we arrive at the notion of worth apart from speciesism.
– Sentimentalism can cloud the facts, even as it drives concern. And that emerges from proximity. But how do we move from sentimentslism to grapple with what is true without losing sight of arguments for animal rights or moral responsibly even to all persons.

Here in lies the problem. Morality emerges from association (which is why we don’t eat our pets). But can it reach beyond that? We appeal irrationally to differences to justify actions. There is a difference between the farmer who shoots his own pigs that have been raised well and the mass system of a supermarket. And certainly the farmer isn’t committing a moral wrong if it is purely connected to awareness or agreement. And yet fundamentally this still represents a problem.

Most of us would agree that we shouldn’t treat animals as things, but we live and function in a world where this is precisely what the law does and enables. Extending rights to an animal makes them moral persons by definition, not synonymous with human. And society at large sees this a dangerous and illogical move that sits contrary to who we are as animals with specific rights. We are simply animals with certain capacities, but the current state of animal rights refuses to acknowledge whether this means superiority or responsibility or otherwise. Even the authors acknowledge that they must appeal to some level of human preferentially and excptionalism for their appeal to a definable global right to work at all. And the way for that global right to work is to operate on the same grounds as laws have for dealing with humans with lesser capacities. It doesn’t base its rights on capacity, it bases it on necessary immunity while applying a fluid and necessary moral underpinning which can allow humans to navigate ambiguities and functional complexities.

Here is my personal pushback. The authors do a great job of walking through the different components of the issue and the argument. But there is one wall they can’t overcome- death. The question that is begged is, does suffering only apply to the living, or does it also apply to death. And if we say only to the living, then we are dealing with degrees. Less suffering is better than more becomes the operating principle. And yet it is an operative principle that not only operates without a grounding, it can’t actually be a moral ought. It will always be purely functional, and in a materialist point of perspective completely contextaulized. Unless we can say suffering is bad, therefore death is bad, and have this be our operative principle, arguing for the right to life for all living things becomes impossible.

Not all animals are equal
Not all humans are equal.
And yet, we appeal to equality as fundamental to life, which is why capacity isn’t a way to argue. This is good.

But the authors imagination for what this might and can bring about is severely limited and handcuffed. At best it can appeal to proximity. I might have stepped on multiple bugs unknowingly by simply going for a walk. But then I come across a baby bird that has fallen out of its nest. My responsibility for the bird comes from seeing and experiencing and knowing it’s suffering. We can’t be responsible for all life. That’s impossible. But where our awareness grows in proximity to suffering we can become more responsible. But here is the thing. The thing that fuels this must be a conviction that suffering and death are wrong. Are evil. Are opposed to life. This is the only way to locate equality of value. It allows me to say that wherever i find this in any capacity, it is a mark of what is wrong and what our responses should imagine being made right. The authors can’t do this. And for me, they are then forced to make leaps in their reasoning that I think undercuts their argument, or they are forced to make exceptions, which also undercuts their argument.

Some might say I’m placing too big a burden on reason. But by reason alone, if I took this materialist point of perspective I would arrive at a different place. That’s why it matters to me, beyond being convinced of a different starting point and foundation. Fundamentally for me that missing component is theological. I can say all life has equal value because I believe it is a theological truth. And I can say that suffering and death is Evil because I believe it is a theological truth. All the functional elements of the argument fit into this foundational point of view. I am motivated towards animal rights because I believe it is our responsibility as people with this knowledge and awareness, knowledge that exists as truth external to our capacities in a complicated and messy world operating according to laws that do not reflect the life giving character of the Divine name I call God. I think the notion that all life has the same breathe is what gives humanity hope that all life can be liberated from the power of Sin (suffering) and Death. We do not find judgement of creation according to the lie, but the Truth, and we respond accordingly within our capacities.

That’s me. I do however still appreciate this book and what it brings to the table immensely, even if I think it doesn’t go far enough.

Film Journal 2024: Fancy Dance
Directed by Erica Tremblay

As the story unfolds in Fancy Damce it starts to gradually find its rhythm and its voice, slowly cutting through the general set up to narrow in on the simplicity of its road trip motif. The more this film simplifies its focus the better it becomes, partly because the plot is probably the weakest part of this script, and also because the performances, beginning with Gladstones sheer strength of presence, are the films biggest strength.

The ending is also really satisfying, which is where you really do get to feel and experience what this film is all about- the connection between strength of family and strength of culture against great adversity.

Reading Journal 2024: Once a Queen
Author: Sarah Arthur

Reminiscent of Lewis, George Macdonald and Madeleine L’Engle, just with a modern twist.

Follows parallel stories, each occupying different sides of a door, one telling the tale of a magical world of Queens and stags the other a story of the real world, mundane happenings of a fourteen year old American girl named Eva who comes to England over a summer to stay with her relatives. A central mystery surrounding the history and secrets of Eva’s family binds both stories together, and as they push forward, one beginning with a cosmic origins the other with the uncovering of family origins and childhood experiences, the line between truth and fiction becomes blurred and the questions of whether and how the two storyline might overlap and be connected become more prevalent.

Loved the English setting, the sense of mystery, the blending of fantasy with magical realism. The book tackles some substantive subject matter, using the relationship between granddaughter and grandmother to anchor the emotional arc in a mix of intimate/personal and broader more spiritual/philosophical/cosmic concern. It also has a memorable cast of characters surrounding the central relationship, making the story entertaining and meaningful. Fills that niche that is classical myth telling (as opposed to the more modern definitions) built around childhood wonder and aged reflection, helping to break open our sense if truth and reality from life’s shackles.

Film Journal 2024: Wild Goat Surf
Directed by Caitlyn Sponheimer

An impressive debut, made all the more worthwhile given its distinct flavor of Canadiana, set along the coastal area of British Columbia. It’s a coming of age film that explores the challenges of growing up in the face of adversity- single parent family, grief, being an outsider. As such it navigates the relationship between rebellion and belonging. The fusion of skater and surfer becomes more of an allegory than a functional motif, narrowing in on the relationships that become the films driving force. The whole thing has a subtle but undeniable beauty behind it, including some understated cinematography. Gives it all a real raw and storied nature.

Looking forward to what comes next for the Director, and pleasantly surprised to discover this to rank among the best of 2024 thus far.

Film Journal 2024: I Am: Celine Dion
Directed by Irene Taylor

Did not expect this. Really well made. Touching, vulnerable, revealing. And that’s coming from someone who’s only real knowledge of Dion is her most popular songs.

It is from the Director of Leave No Trace, so I guess the quality shouldn’t be that surprising.

Film Journal 2024: Thelma
Directed by Josh Margolin

The premise is inspired, taking a classic espionage/spy motif and laying it over top of a simple drama about a 90 plus year old woman (played with undeniable and equally inspired charm and charisma by June Squibb) who becomes the victim of a scam and sets out to get her money back. Part of the inspired nature of this premise is the fact that it is advertised as an action packed movie, but ultimately plays to the speed of its primary target audience. I appreciated its willingness to commit to this level, right down to the quirky, unconventional dialogue and characterization. Thelma’s kids and her grandson are genuinely odd presences, filled with disjointed and often non-sensicle dialogue, and it feels like we are seeing them through Thelmas eyes, for whom the whole world has become strange and unfamiliar.

The film is ultimately about the idea of aging and what that is for both the aged person and the people in their lives who care for them. Here it proves to have a lot of heart as well. If it takes some risks tonally, it absolutely lands the emotional connection. A great smaller gem that I hope gets some love and support

Film Journal 2024: The Bikeriders
Directed by Jeff Nichols 

I haven’t read the book, but I noticed a few think pieces detailing the films decision to make the female voice the narrator of the film as being one of the central differences between the adaptation and the male dominated story of the source material. Although I can’t rightly make the contrast, I can say that Comer’s complex persona was without a doubt a highlight and strength of the story.

The Bikeriders, a fictional take on a real life biker gang that became the seedbed for familiar entities like Hells Angels, actually caught me off guard with its studied and patient character study. More than a character study in fact, it’s also an examination of a culture, or a cultural and societal formation. That is not what I expected from the trailers, which sold it as a tonal exercise and aesthetically driven cinematic experience. I really resonated with what I ultimately got from this film, which uses Comer’s character, a largely outsider persona who embodies the different tensions inherent within this group of misfits looking for somewhere to belong beyond the constraints of the system that has determined their positions in the world, as a window into their emotional, social and personal psyches. Where there exists emotional repression, Comers embattled character carries the emotion. Where there exists irrationality and resistance to reason, she becomes the voice of reason on their behalf. Where there exists family discord, she models a familial spirit and commitment. All while being lost and embattled herself.

What makes this narrative choice so profound is that it never clouds the bikers from our view, rather it brings them into view with far more clarity and precision. The natural arc of the film occupies the different flavors and sensibilities of the gangs gradual development, allowing the third act to feel like a very different kind of film than the first section or the second. We move from opportunistic to optimism to defeat and complex resolution, anchoring the story in this movement from construction to disillusion and deconstruction, all the while propping up this societal structure as a microcosm of the universal human experience.

It also has one of the more arresting lines for me thematically of 2024, where Johnny, trying to capture the emotional stakes of everything that has been going on, reflects that “you cam try and give everything you have to something and it’s still going to do what it’s going to do.” The fact that this applies to one’s life is what gives this another layer, and it has been sticking with me ever since as I keep thinking about this film.

I never thought a film about bikers could play so broadly, but it’s an impressive feat that really speaks to the quality of its filmmaking and its performances.

Was listening to a talk by Father Andrew Stephen Damick this morning. He suggested, and the following is my own summation, that there are three important things to remember when it comes to navigating differences in beliefs and worldview:
1. Recognizing that its possible that someone actually understands what you are saying and your point of view and still doesn’t agree.

One familiar motif when it comes to discussing beliefs/convictions/worldview is that if someone disagrees it means they don’t understand. This can often be the case. However, things spiral out of control when we assume that the only way a person can understand is if they agree, and this happens all the time, often with both parties equally guilty of doing the same thing

2. Everyone’s beliefs and convictions, or the arguments they are making (which can be ones they ultimately disagree with), necessarily function within the specific boundaries of their given assumptions.

So often what happens in discussions is people believe they are operating without bias and are the only truly objective one in the conversation. Similarly, they treat their argument as though it is able to function apart from their given assumptions in a truly empirical and reasoned fashion. The end result is often propping up a fallacy that then uses their conclusions as an argument for their given assumptions. Not only that, but arguments are used to address a point of view that is operating according to a very different set of assumptions with a very different set of questions, leading to a never ending set of logical fallacies that confuse the necessary limitations of a given argument.

3. We all have a worldview, and we all have beliefs/convictions/biases, and empiricism and reason and logic  do not operate apart from these things. They can only function well in relationship to these things. They are in fact subservient to them, and necessarily so.

Empiricism, reason, logic, they do not function in a bubble. These are benign things apart from interpretation and an interpreter. Functional realities cannot and do not speak on their own. One of the great tragedies of modernism is that it convinced us that they do.

The Invention of Prehistory: Empire, Violence, and Our Obsession with Human Origins
Author: Stefanos Geroulanos

There were a few times when I found my mind wandering back to David Graeber’s The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. A better book that deals with some of the same ideas, albeit Geroulanos narrows in far more explicitly on the question of our demonstrative obsession with the question of human origins.

I really liked the idea being explored, less fond of its approach. Given the way the chapters are structured, moving in a linear fashion through the different points of history as it tracks the development of our obsession with prehistory and human origins, the later chapters lose some of their force and their power once the pattern of this obsession has been established. I already understood how this established itself in the Holocaust, for example, long before we get there.

Thus I found the earlier chapters the most interesting and the most compelling with one small caveat. At one point the author suggests that our obsession with human origins is actually fundamentally about the present and wrapped up in the language of our present. So there is this sense in which the closer the book gets to where we live today, the more it makes sense of its general conceit. You can feel some of what the author is arguing sort of proofing itself in the process of understanding how even my interest in the earlier chapters and their emphasis on the earlier history is interpreted by and shaped by the world I am living in now. As the author says, prehistory ultimately says nothing in and of itself. It cannot speak on it’s own. We arrange it, and them (Neanderthals for example) in our present to say what we need them to say and in “whatever postion we need them to take.”

The first chapter, titled The Human Epic, sets the stage by noting that prehistory is ultimately about our need to tell a story. “The story of human origins tells us who we are, how we came to dominate this planet and each other, how we invented religion and then discarded it in favor of the gods of progress and technology. It supposedly reveals a million little things about human life, like why we desire and whom, how our emotions work, or how we love and care for others.”

And yet, all “these grandiose claims prompt far more questions than they answer.” No matter how many “impressive names” we give to this story, which is ultimately a “story of us”, the only real truth that it can speak is that it is a story about “the triumph of modern knowledge”, or the fundamental narrative of progress. As the author puts it, “the story of human origins offers as good an answer as any we have to the fundamental question: what, after all, is the human.” And why do we tell this story? Because the narrative of progress demands it in order to be upheld, and without the narrative of progress we have no way of making sense of humanity’s arrival on the scene (let alone anything that might supersede it). Thus it is not about the facts of our origin, which can never really be known, it is about justifying our actions in the present. “The deep past so exceeds our grasp… (and) matters so much to who we are” at the same time.

Here then we come to the authors most direct claim- “thinking about human origins has been one of the most generative intellectual endeavors in modern history. It has also been  one of the most ruinous.” What does he mean by this? He argues that at it’s most readily observable crisis point we lack a good defintion of humanity, but this wasn’t always the case. Modernitity and its appeal to the story of science and progress, born as it was from the soil of the 18th century and its hyper focus on our story of origins, has simply clouded it from our view.

So what then is the ruinous in this authors view, and what is the good defintion of humanity that he wants to recover? He’s a lot clearer on the former than he is the latter. At the outset he says that “this is a book about science and speculation, about the space where each loses itself in the other, the great gray zone where rigorous research meets with righteous belief.” That grey zone becomes the boiling pot where “human impulses” can take root, creating the ruinous. That impulse, for the author, is born from an inherent need to “convince ourselves” that we are something in comparison to the distant other (or in alignment with a more pure distant other). For the author, the better story is the present, a present that is telling it’s own story about “compound beings, webs of meaning, and cyborgs.” A story in which what we do now is what defines us, not some unknown past and non-existent and undefinable future with no real and actual aim. Here he puts forth an argument for a strident capital H humanism not built on the past but a “skepticism” regarding our answers and our doubts that can operate in service of “a better theory for tomorrow.”

That last phrasing is important to me, as it becomes the grounds upon which I note an inconsistency in his reasoning. The author never takes the time to actually establish and justify a better story for humanity. He assumes a bunch of the ruinous outcomes to be bad, but he never actually does the work to establish why. If progress is built on the necesssdy ruins of the past, what argument are you going to give to the people of the present, the ones who are the apparent products of this ruinous past to say it is wrong? How do you tackle the problem that the modern West creates, a formation that dominates the bulk of this book, when you also want to uphold it as a portrait of a better world than what it left behind in the dirt? The author makes seemingly contrary claims all along the way, trying to build a case that the world is not better on one hand, and saying that it is on the other. And, this is simply my opinion, but I think this is the case because he doesn’t commit enough to his own premise for it to actually say what it needs to say. As you can catch in that last line, he is still committed to a narrative of progress and Humanism. When he says,”There is no grander story than humanity’s emergence out of nature,” it is both tongue in cheek but also honest to his own viewpoint. However he reaches for meaning, it begins and ends with humanity. Stripping us of our need to locate that in our deep history of human origins doesn’t really change the problem.

What is however evident though, and I think this where I found the book most helpful, is his ability to expose human penchants, in a particular worldview, for inventions and illusions to give us meaning, progresses penchant for selective ruination as the necessary driving force of a better future, and the permeating of an invented story in even what we might deem the best of our progress (science, feminism, LBTGQ+ rights, democracy). If nothing else, coming to terms with this reality and recognizing the problematic foundations we are building on today, in many ways which stand in stark and often desperate contradiction to nature itself, if not outright ignorance of the real story nature is telling, should humble us. Especially when it comes to revealing how it is that we come to speak in terms of good and bad. I think the author here, in stripping away the western myths (using his definition of myth), is right on a number of fronts. I just don’t think he is able to find a better story, nor convincingly argue why the one the world seemingly naturally follows is not the best one. And this is just me, but I think one of the reasons this is the case is because he assumes religion to be an invention of the past that is necessarily left in the ruins using the very same reasoning and assumptions he is trying to deconstruct. His basic conclusion is, we all tell our own stories built from our own present, but the problem with this is that when someone is confronted by the basic idea that there is no true aim, or when that present legitimately sucks for a person or persons, or when the lessons of the past require those ruins by their nature, ect ect  you need a better story. So where do you find it?