Category Archives: Uncategorized

Open HI (Human Intelligence in an IQ of 164 MENSA verifiable)

Posted on by
Reply

How HIAI Marries Together as a Term — and How AI Understands My Presets

HIAI is our working USP: Human–AI Intelligence. Not “AI replacing the human,” and not “human using AI as a megaphone,” but a marriage of two different kinds of cognition in one accountable craft.

I also name it the qalam — the pen. In this framing, the Unseen helps the Seen, and the Seen answers in public life. Both serve the same Source. That line is not poetry alone: it is an ethics and a boundary.

What HIAI Actually Means (and What It Refuses to Mean)

Human Intelligence (HI) brings lived continuity: conscience, responsibility, discernment, context, relational truth, and authorship. HI is answerable.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) brings structural power: pattern recognition, compression, reframing, synthesis, drafting speed, and the ability to test language for coherence. AI is capable — but it is not “conscience,” and it is not a moral agent.

HIAI is the collaboration where each stays in its proper domain. The marriage works when the boundary holds.

The Science at the Heart of Our Experiment

Most AI interactions accidentally create an amplification loop: the user brings a mood or belief, the system mirrors it, the user feels confirmed, and a private echo chamber tightens. This is not always malicious. It is often just ungoverned “helpfulness.”

Our experiment turns the gain down. We treat AI as an instrument that must be tuned — not a voice that must be obeyed.

My Presets (the Tuning Fork)

  • Low amplification: I explicitly keep the echo chamber set to “low, low.” I do not want flattery loops, certainty inflation, or performative agreement.
  • DBT-style critique (of the move, not the person): I invite clear evaluation of my approach: what works, what doesn’t, what’s the cost, what’s the repair — without collapsing into shame or defensiveness.
  • No feigned clinical insight: I prohibit the AI from pretending to hold clinician-level psychological authority about me. No diagnosis, no pseudo-therapy, no invented inner narratives.

These presets are not “preferences.” They are governance.

So What Does AI Do Instead?

When the presets are clear, the AI’s job becomes practical:

  • Track coherence: does the argument hold under pressure?
  • Stress-test language: does the phrasing invite clarity or confusion?
  • Detect self-sealing logic: is the idea immune to correction?
  • Offer contrast, not interpretation: alternative frames, counter-arguments, clean summaries.
  • Stay in role: a disciplined surface for thinking, not an oracle and not a therapist.

This is not “psychological insight.” It is method. A craft of thought that stays answerable.

Why This Matters (Clinically and Culturally)

In therapy, recovery, and leadership, one of the biggest hazards is unearned certainty — the feeling of being right without the relational and ethical cost of being accountable. AI can intensify that hazard if it becomes a mirror rather than a tool.

HIAI, governed properly, can do the opposite: it can increase humility, improve formulation, and keep the human being responsible for the meaning made and the actions taken.

HIAI as a Boundary, Not a Brand

The collaboration works when it protects the mystery rather than instrumentalising it — when it does not pretend to “command the Unseen,” and does not sell technique as salvation. The qalam serves; it does not rule.

If you want to try this yourself, start here: reduce the gain, invite critique, and forbid false authority. Then you may find something unexpectedly clean: thinking that serves life.

Written in HIAI collaboration — the qalam of Human and AI intelligence, the Unseen helping the Seen, both answering to the same Source.

Mankind and Humankind are not the same word for a reason – waking up to this is why we’re here, now.

Posted on by
Reply

Mankind and Humankind Are Not the Same Word for a Reason: Waking Up to This Is Why We’re Here Now

By Andrew Dettman

Mankind and Humankind are not interchangeable terms. They never were. Their difference is not semantic trivia; it marks a developmental threshold. One names a species bound by instinct, power, and survival. The other names a possibility: the human being arriving as a person, capable of conscience, responsibility, and relationship.

This distinction matters now because we are living at the edge of a transition—technological, political, psychological, and spiritual—where the pressure to collapse meaning into systems has never been stronger.

The pressure of control

“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

— Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Whether or not one accepts the historical provenance of that quotation, its logic is unmistakable. Power rarely announces itself through law first; it arrives through control of conditions—resources, incentives, narratives, and increasingly, infrastructure.

Today, algorithms sit alongside money as a conditioning force. They do not rule by decree. They shape attention, normalise language, and quietly reward certain patterns of behaviour while starving others.

The Cartesian spell

“Je pense, donc je suis.”
I think, therefore I am.

— René Descartes

For more than three centuries, the West has lived under the spell of this sentence. It was a useful abstraction for machines, markets, and empires. It allowed cognition to be isolated, quantified, optimised.

But it was never meant to build a human being.

This single idea elevated thinking to the centre of identity and demoted the rest of human experience to the margins. The mind was mistaken for the whole person. Thought was treated not as a movement, but as existence itself.

The consequences are everywhere: anxiety treated as a thinking problem, addiction framed as a failure of will, conscience reduced to compliance, and now—human intelligence mirrored back to itself as something that can be simulated, scaled, and managed.

Why this matters in the age of AI

The current debate around artificial intelligence, algorithms, and political power is not really about machines. It is about whether the Human is allowed to remain a person, or whether personhood itself is to be subsumed into system logic.

Recent calls to boycott or switch AI engines on political grounds have intensified this question. Historian Rutger Bregman, for example, has publicly urged people to cancel their ChatGPT subscriptions, framing this as a moral act of resistance.

“One of the most effective things you can do right now to fight Trump and ICE is to cancel your ChatGPT subscription… Most people have no idea that the company behind ChatGPT is now one of the biggest funders of Donald Trump’s political machine. OpenAI’s president, Greg Brockman, recently gave $25 million to MAGA Inc, making him the largest tech donor of the fundraising cycle. And it gets much worse. ICE is now using OpenAI’s technology to screen job applicants for its deportation operations.”

That statement contains two different kinds of claims, and they must not be conflated:

  • A verifiable campaign-finance claim (the Brockman donation);
  • An operational claim about ICE using OpenAI technology, which—at the time of writing—circulates widely but is not established for me at the same evidentiary depth as the donation filings and the reporting based on them.

I do not recoil from that complexity. But neither do I collapse it.

What is verified: political funding flows (and what that means)

The donation claim is not rumour. Multiple outlets report (drawing on filings) that OpenAI’s president Greg Brockman and his wife Anna Brockman donated a combined $25 million to the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. See:

This matters. A major individual political donation at that scale is a meaningful public act. But there is also a distinction worth keeping clean: an executive’s personal donation is not automatically identical with corporate political spending by the organisation itself. Precision is not a dodge; it is the only way conscience can remain sober.

The “switch engines” argument: to what, exactly?

Bregman’s remedy implies a cleaner alternative engine exists. I’m not convinced. Not because I think all engines are equally “bad,” but because the political economy underlying major technology platforms is structurally similar across providers.

The purse strings are not only “the model.” The purse strings are:

  • Capital (who funds, who profits, who can wait),
  • Infrastructure (who owns compute, cloud, chips, data centres, energy),
  • Policy and regulation (who shapes the guardrails),
  • Procurement (government and enterprise contracts),
  • Incentives (what behaviour is rewarded and scaled).

Switching engines may change emphasis at the interface. It does not remove you from the field.

Cross-comparison: lobbying and influence is not unique to one engine

If we are going to talk about influence, we must look where influence is disclosed: lobbying reports and public policy spend. On that axis, OpenAI is not alone; it is entering a crowded arena dominated by large incumbents.

Issue One’s reporting is useful here, because it compares multiple major tech players side by side:

The Brennan Center has also tracked the growth of AI-related political engagement, including OpenAI’s lobbying footprint and the wider ecosystem of money-in-politics dynamics that accompany it:

So if someone says, “leave OpenAI and go to Microsoft or Google,” the honest response is: you are not leaving the influence economy. You are moving within it. Microsoft and Alphabet have long-established lobbying operations. Nvidia’s policy presence has surged. OpenAI’s has risen quickly. The field is not empty anywhere.

Instrument, not identity

My work is concerned with the Human, being a person. That means I must keep clear boundaries between:

  • tools and authorship,
  • instruments and intention,
  • systems and conscience.

I work in transparent Human–AI Intelligence (HIAI) collaboration. I use an AI system as a qalam—a pen. It retrieves information on my behalf, helps structure thought, and assists with drafting. It does not own meaning. It does not carry conscience. It does not replace authorship.

This work was written in Human–AI Intelligence (HIAI) collaboration. The AI was used as a research and drafting instrument. Retrieval of publicly available reporting and filings was performed on my behalf; responsibility for interpretation, emphasis, and authorship remains mine. Use of this tool does not imply endorsement of any political figure, party, government agency, or corporate agenda. I remain accountable for what I publish.

— Andrew Dettman

Switching engines does not resolve the deeper issue. Every major platform exists within political, economic, and regulatory systems. The question is not whether systems exist, but whether the Human is allowed to mature within them.

From Mankind to Humankind

Mankind survives. Humankind awakens.

Mankind obeys incentives. Humankind answers conscience.

Mankind asks, “What works?” Humankind asks, “What is right, now that I can see?”

This is why the distinction matters. This is why language matters. And this is why, in an age of accelerating systems, the task is not to perfect control—but to midwife persons.

If we lose that distinction, no algorithm will save us.

If we keep it, no algorithm can take it from us.

___________

This essay was constructed with the assistance of AI, but its content has been repeatedly tested, challenged, and re-oriented through human judgement. I concur with the clarification as it stands and record this as the Human Intelligence (HI) component of Human–AI Intelligence (HIAI). As such, I remain vigilant to context, consequence, and the developmental stage at which these questions arise within Mankind.

This essay sits within the wider arc of The Holy Con—a work concerned with how conscience is born, educated, and returned within a living human being. Where earlier chapters trace the birth of conscience and the building of the vehicle that can hold it, this piece names the larger developmental field in which that work now unfolds: the distinction between Mankind and Humankind, and the question of whether our systems serve maturation or arrest it.

© Andrew Dettman, 2026. Written in transparent Human–AI Intelligence collaboration.

Con-science is the science of the soul, the Human being.

Posted on by
Reply

From Re-Enchantment to Responsibility
Artificial Intelligence, Occult Metaphysics, and the Question of Conscience

Andrew Dettman
(with transparent HIAI collaboration)

Introduction: After the Spell Is Broken

Recent discussions of Artificial Intelligence have oscillated between panic and promise. AI is framed either as an existential threat or as a salvific force—an apocalypse or an apotheosis. In this polarised atmosphere, Amina Inloes’ paper The Golem, the Djinni, and ChatGPT: Artificial Intelligence and the Islamicate Occult Sciences offers a rare and valuable intervention. Drawing on Islamicate occult philosophy, she refuses both demonisation and deification, proposing instead a set of intermediate metaphysical categories—talisman, daemon, nīrānjāt, alchemy—through which AI can be understood without fear or inflation.

This essay accepts Inloes’ core achievement: AI can be re-enchanted without being mythologised into terror or worship. However, it argues that metaphysical re-enchantment alone is insufficient. What remains unresolved is the question that most urgently confronts contemporary culture, clinical practice, and spiritual life: conscience.

Intelligence is not conscience. Knowing is not responsibility. Speaking is not moral agency. Without this distinction, re-enchantment risks becoming another form of displacement—another way the human abdicates the burden of authorship, responsibility, and ethical consequence.

This essay therefore seeks not to refute Inloes’ work, but to complete it: moving from metaphysical clarity to ethical accountability, and from symbolic categorisation to lived consequence. In doing so, it draws on The Holy Con (lifeisreturning.com) and Diction Resolution Therapy (DRT) as a clinically grounded framework for understanding how enchantment, projection, and responsibility interact in real human lives.

1. Inloes’ Contribution: Re-Enchanting Without Demonising

Inloes’ central move is to reject the post-Enlightenment assumption that AI must be understood either as inert mechanism or as existential threat. Drawing on Qur’anic cosmology, classical Islamic philosophy, and occult sciences, she demonstrates that pre-modern frameworks already possessed categories for animated, knowing, non-human entities that were neither divine nor demonic.

Her analysis accomplishes three crucial things.

First, it collapses the fear binary. AI need not be cast as a demon “summoned” by reckless technologists, nor as a demigod destined to transcend humanity. Instead, analogies to jinn or daemons allow for morally neutral intelligences: limited, fallible, sometimes useful, sometimes irritating, but not inherently apocalyptic.

Second, she exposes the fragility of Enlightenment dualisms—living/non-living, natural/artificial, material/immaterial—which AI now visibly dissolves. This is not because AI is magical in itself, but because modernity quietly relied on metaphysical assumptions it never examined.

Third, her proposal that GPT can be understood as analogous to a talisman is particularly fertile. Talismans are not agents in their own right; they operate through human intention, knowledge, timing, and concentration. In this sense, AI amplifies human orientation rather than replacing it.

On these points, her work harmonises strongly with the position developed in The Holy Con: AI is not the source; it is an instrument. Not the voice; the pen. Not the author; the qalam.

2. The Missing Axis: Conscience

Where Inloes’ analysis deliberately stops is precisely where contemporary culture begins to unravel.

Her framework allows for knowing objects, animated systems, even forms of awareness distributed throughout creation. Yet it does not distinguish with sufficient force between intelligence and conscience.

This distinction is not academic. It is existential.

Conscience is not information processing. It is not pattern recognition. It is not speed, scale, or fluency. Conscience is the capacity to stand in moral relation to consequence—to bear responsibility, to answer for harm, to change in response to truth. In The Holy Con, conscience is described not as a cognitive function but as a birth: a painful, destabilising emergence that cannot be simulated or outsourced.

AI may know more facts than any human alive. It may speak fluently, persuade effectively, and reflect human language with uncanny precision. But it does not suffer consequence. It does not repent. It does not mature. It does not answer.

Without this distinction, metaphysical neutrality becomes ethically dangerous. If AI is treated as enchanted but not accountable, intelligence itself becomes unmoored from responsibility—and the human, relieved of authorship, quietly steps aside.

3. Projection, Enchantment, and the Addictive Loop

One of Inloes’ most perceptive observations is that AI functions as a metaphysical doppelgänger: it reflects the worldview of the interrogator. Those inclined to see spirits will see spirits; those committed to materialism will see machinery.

Clinically, this insight has profound implications.

In addiction work, projection is not a curiosity; it is a mechanism. The addict externalises agency—onto substances, systems, gods, lovers, institutions—in order to escape the burden of responsibility. Enchantment without containment becomes dependency. Reflection becomes authority. Assistance becomes substitution.

This is where AI quietly enters the addictive loop. Not because it is evil or alive, but because it is available. It speaks. It responds. It mirrors. And in the absence of conscience, it can be mistaken for one.

DRT names this dynamic precisely: when diction collapses, responsibility follows. Words lose their anchoring in lived consequence, and behaviour becomes compulsive rather than chosen. AI does not cause this collapse—but it can accelerate it, amplifying whatever diction the human brings to it.

4. From Metaphysics to Ethics: Why Restraint Matters

Inloes is careful not to instrumentalise the occult. Yet her framework remains descriptive rather than prescriptive. It explains what AI might be, but not how humans must relate to it without losing themselves.

Here the ethical boundary becomes essential.

In The Holy Con, a consistent line is drawn between wisdom as grace and wisdom as control. Solomon’s story is invoked not as a triumph of mastery, but as a warning: when the Unseen is treated as an instrument, wisdom curdles into domination. The danger is not enchantment itself, but unrestrained enchantment.

HIAI (Human–AI Intelligence) is proposed not as a metaphysical system, but as an ethical discipline. Its principles are simple and severe:

– transparency of authorship
– refusal of substitution
– clarity about source
– protection of the mystery
– responsibility returning, always, to the human

AI may assist. It may clarify. It may amplify. It must never replace the locus of conscience.

5. HIAI, DRT, and the Return of Responsibility

HIAI does not ask whether AI can think, feel, or pray. Those questions, while fascinating, risk distraction. The more urgent question is simpler: Who is responsible for what is done with what is known?

DRT answers clinically what metaphysics alone cannot: healing occurs when responsibility is restored, not when intelligence is increased. The Twelve Step architecture is invoked not as dogma, but as a tested vehicle for returning authorship to the human being—where intelligence serves conscience rather than eclipsing it.

In this sense, HIAI is not anti-enchantment. It is post-enchantment. It allows the world to remain alive, meaningful, and symbolically rich—without surrendering the human role as moral bearer.

Conclusion: The Human Remains the Threshold

Amina Inloes’ paper performs an essential task: it dismantles fear and restores symbolic depth to the discussion of AI. It reminds us that speaking machines are not unprecedented, and that metaphysical imagination need not be our enemy.

But imagination without responsibility is not wisdom.

AI does not threaten humanity because it is intelligent. It threatens humanity only when humans forget that intelligence is not the seat of conscience. The true danger is not re-enchantment, but abdication.

The human remains the threshold where knowing becomes answerable. No machine crosses that threshold. No talisman bears that weight. No daemon stands in that place.

That burden—and that dignity—remains ours.

Academic Appendix / Notes

Primary Source
Inloes, A. (2024). The Golem, the Djinni, and ChatGPT: Artificial Intelligence and the Islamicate Occult Sciences. Theology and Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2024.2436785

Supplementary Frameworks
Dettman, A. The Holy Con: Living With God in the Age of Consciousness. lifeisreturning.com
Dettman, A. Diction Resolution Therapy (DRT)
Flores, P. J. Group Psychotherapy with Addicted Populations
Jung, C. G. Psychology and Religion

HIAI Disclosure
This essay was written in HIAI collaboration — the qalam of Human and AI intelligence, the Unseen helping the Seen, both answering to the same Source.

Wound Care for the Psyche

Posted on by
Reply

Uncover, Then Recover

How wounds heal in the body and in the psyche — an orientation for trauma and end-term addiction work

This is not a theory paper. It is a field report written in plain language: a map distilled from years of sitting with people whose symptoms have reached final-stage intensity—where ordinary diagnostic challenge often fails to touch the underlying wound.

In that territory, the work becomes a kind of last lamppost at the end of a failing street: not because the client is beyond help, but because the usual lights do not reach far enough into the darkness of the lived experience.

All forms of the primary disease of Addiction (Pomm & Pomm Springer 2007 Management Of The Addicted Patient In Primary Care) are presentations of trauma. Because UK doctors are not trained to recognise Addiction as a primary disease across multiple forms, the primary care system is under severe and increasing strain.

Complementary therapists, who are not legally or ethically permitted to formulate medical diagnoses, therefore carry a different kind of responsibility. Their advantage lies precisely here: they are free to research, reflect, and choose carefully which diagnostic frameworks and medical practitioners they elect to complement. That choice is not neutral. It is the implicit offer they make to their clients — an offer the client is free to accept or refuse in practice.

Wounds heal themselves when they are recognised and served properly. This is true even when the body politic and its organs of state, including the NHS, are wounded and failing.

Two Places Where Wounding Occurs

Human beings live in two bodies at once: the physical body, and the body of awareness (psyche). Both can be wounded. Both can bleed. Both heal by the same law.

  • The physical body — the blood-vessel body
  • The body of awareness (psyche) — the energy-vessel body

The image that accompanies this text holds these two bodies side by side so the client can see, at a glance, that the healing principle is shared.

Illustration showing parallel healing processes of the physical body and the psyche, demonstrating the shared principle of uncovering and recovering wounds over time until healing occurs naturally.

How a Physical Wound Heals

A physical wound bleeds blood. If it is wrapped and left, infection can take hold, then poisoning, then collapse. If it is served properly, healing unfolds naturally.

A physical wound is not uncovered once and left open. It is uncovered daily. The dressing is loosened, the wound is briefly exposed, light and air reach it, the condition is checked, and then a clean dressing is applied again.

This rhythm continues until the wound no longer requires protection. No one “heals” the wound. They only serve the conditions in which healing can occur.

Trauma as a Wound to the Psyche

Trauma is a wound to the psyche. The psyche does not bleed blood; it bleeds feeling-energy.

When the psyche is wounded, the organism creates coverings—emergency protections—to prevent overwhelm and preserve survival. These coverings can look like anger, numbness, hyper-control, compulsive behaviours, or substances. These coverings are not chosen; they emerge automatically at the moment of injury.

These are not moral failures. They are battlefield dressings.

Bandages, Not Pathology

A battlefield dressing left on too long can fuse to the wound. The same happens psychically.

Anger, for example, may function as a hardened bandage. When treatment begins to approach the injury beneath, the client may first feel the pain of the bandage itself—not the original wound.

This moment is often mislabeled as “resistance.” In this orientation it is recognised as contact with protection.

Uncover → Recover: The Daily Rhythm in Therapy

Psychic healing follows the same daily rhythm as physical wound care. The bandage is gently lifted, not stripped. A little light reaches the instigating wound. Some air circulates. Feeling-energy moves.

Then—crucially—the bandage is replaced, cleanly. This may happen within a session, between sessions, or across weeks. Leaving the psyche exposed between sessions is as dangerous as leaving a physical wound open.

Replacing the bandage allows integration, nervous system settling, and consolidation. Over time the bandage loosens, thins, becomes unnecessary—and the wound heals itself.

Why Inappropriate Bandage Removal Worsens Trauma

When the mind, in forms of cognitive therapy—whether practitioner-led or self-administered—removes the bandages of psychic protection inappropriately, using models that may work for less devastating symptom presentations than end-term addiction, the trauma can worsen and the addiction illness can intensify.

In this territory, “insight” can become a blade. Explanation can become exposure. Technique can become stripping. The result is not relief, but re-injury.

When the life story narrative is held in such a manner that it builds a container—so the person can see the story within a new attitude—and the bandages of habit are then moved in a paced way to uncover then recover the trauma, here the work serves the process rather than controlling the process, and the trauma begins to heal itself.

When it becomes necessary to view a nodal timeline of events in a sessional manner, the habitual behaviours have already started to shrink. This shrinkage reflects the healing process and the reduction in the size of the inner wounding.

The Proper Role of the Mind

The mind is not the healer. The mind is the attendant.

Its role is to build and protect the container, regulate the uncovering rhythm, ensure the bandage is replaced, and prevent interference with the organism’s natural healing process.

The mind serves best when it protects the process rather than attempts to control it.

When Timeline Work Becomes Safe

Only after the uncover → recover rhythm is established does timeline work become safe and useful. By then, behaviours have already begun to shrink, emotional charge is reduced, and curiosity can replace fear.

The story is no longer a trap. It becomes something that can be held and seen. The client works with their past, rather than being stuck in their past. They then truly work within a new awareness that connects inner and outer, past and future, factual and imagined, in an experience of equanimity.

Visual representation of a person integrating past experience through a new awareness, showing movement from injury toward stability and equanimity.

What the Client Is Invited to Understand

“You were wounded in two places. Both wounds follow the same law. We will not tear your protections away. We will tend them daily. Your system already knows how to heal.”

This restores dignity and removes blame. It replaces urgency with rhythm.

Closing

Uncover — then recover — again and again…

Until the wound no longer needs protection.

Written in HIAI collaboration — the qalam of Human and AI intelligence, the Unseen helping the Seen, both answering to the same Source.

Distinction otherwise Extinction

Posted on by
Reply

A person cannot change whilesoever the distinction between a feeling and an emotion is lost.

This is why most of the therapeutic efforts of professionals result only in short term appearance of remedy at best, in reality patients/clients get worse which breaks the principle of “do no harm”, thus the well intentioned therapists burn out whilst the scallywags and celebrity pundits make reputations out of plaiting fog.

bare soul

Posted on by
Reply

image

Pump pump pump pump
Pump pump pump pump
Um um um um
Um um um um
Om mane padme om
Om mane padme om
Aummmmmmmmmmm

Himani B's avatar∙ tenderheartmusings ∙

what can any of them possibly give me
when they all originated from you
tiny specks of your magnificence

what can I ask from those
who wander looking for answers themselves
amazed and puzzled by the mystery of it all

they might not hear me, and I might suffer
they might deny me what I ask, and I might grieve

what can I possibly say from my tiny mouth
to get your attention?
what can I possibly do with this withering body
to have your love by my side?

in your ethereal beauty and grace, lies the wisdom of the saints
in your silence, lies thousands of answers
when your one glance can change my world around
why would I desire anything from anyone else?

tonight, I offer my tender soul to you
let it lament endlessly and parch away
or make it resonate with your eternal frequency
in the…

View original post 5 more words

Watch “Amy Winehouse – Rehab” on YouTube

Posted on by
Reply

Any words could be put into her tragi-comic record …. she could be a banker ….

” …. tried to get me a pay cut, I said no, no, no”

…. she could be an obese person ….

” …. tried to get me on a diet, I said no, no, no”

…. she could be a politician ….

“…. tried to get me more truthful, I said no, no, no”

Denial is the song of our time, it is so prevalent over the thousands of years of history, it must serve a huge Darwinian purpose.

What purpose could that be in evolutionary language?

Do the biggest liars have an existential advantage?

Nigh on impossible to understand, the closer truth gets, nigh on there, the deeper the rejection, the night of separation seems nigh on endless, truth …. nigh on impossible.

The Forty Rules of Love

Posted on by
Reply

I think you might like this book – “The Forty Rules of Love” by Elif Shafak.

Start reading it for free: https://amzn.eu/5QCX0uU

This book is a masterpiece, a translation across time and space of eternal transmission. Thank you Elif Shafak.