Isqua Istari

The Wise Wizards

PS Cast: Derived Philosophy

Posted in PSCast:S3 by Ziggy Wednesday January 14, 2015 at 00:26

A deeply personal revelation of my internal mental processes.
Dive right in to Derived Philosophy!


(0:00) [Marginally Musical Intro]
…It’s the Paul Spooner Podcast!

(0:18) Greetings! This is Paul Spooner!
I am not sure what I’m gonna talk about today. I’m on the drive home from work. It’s a Sunday here, I had just a few hours to go in and get some stuff done, and now I’m done! Don’t know what I’m going to do with the rest of the day. So I figured I’d try to make some use of it and talk about some stuff in the car.
But… I really… I started recording and I don’t know what I’m going to say. I’m out of words. I don’t have any topics…
There’s so many topics that I could talk about, but I feel like they’re not ready yet. I feel like they’re not fully formed. I’m sure you’ve had that feeling, where you’ve got an idea and it’s kicking around in your head but you’re not ready to release it. It’s not…
Well, and of course I’ve never experienced this, but it seems like it’s kind of like childbirth where you’ve got this idea that’s gestating. It had some inception at some point. Some outside influence affected you in some personal way… I’ll try to not go too deep into the metaphor. You have this idea brewing, developing, and it’s not ready to express yet. You know that it’s there, and you can feel it taking shape, but it doesn’t have a form that will stand up outside your mind. It needs your mind to develop, or your mind still needs to develop it more. I’m not sure which way it is, and probably it’s both ways.
I’ve got a lot of ideas like that. I’ve got a lot of brain babies right now. Stuff with Fledgeling; Stuff with Uplift; Random disconnected ideas about metaphors. Metaphorical connections between different things. Principles of truth that apply in one area that’s obvious, but then they also apply in other in-obvious ways to other things.

(2:20) I guess what I’m saying is I wish I had control over when those things were ready. But I don’t. Maybe that’s the difference between… Some people can just start talking about a topic, they have an oppinion.
Some people have an opinion about everything, right?
Some idea that is true in the broader culture, or true to them at the time, or they kind of just decide what they think about something. And if someone asks for my opinion on something, I can almost always develop one. But I don’t really hold opinions very often. I have a number of general principles that I draw on when I try to come to a conclusion about something. Opinions, for me, are conclusions, and so I don’t hold conclusions, I just hold all the parts that I need to make them, if I need them. So that way, instead of having a whole host of opinions that I hold, I just have a whole bunch of parts, a whole bunch of raw materials out of which to make ideas if the need arises. So then (and this has worked for me for a while now. Probably, I don’t know… ever since… oh sheesh, maybe it’s been my whole life. But where) instead of having an idea of “Okay, I believe this about this”… I do have some of those assumptions that I make. But it seems like a lot of people hold a huge number of assumptions! Like, “Okay! I believe this thing. And I believe this thing. And I believe this thing!” And there’s all these assumptions that they make about the universe.

(3:54) And that’s… I mean, that’s fine. Obviously it works for a lot of people. But I feel like it’s not very flexible? If you come into a circumstance where that assumption is not true and if you hold a lot of assumptions then, no doubt, some of them will be false and some of them will be outright misleading! Then you end up with this very uncomfortable feeling and… Oh oh!

And culture shock!

So, culture shock is kind of an example of this, I think. And of course this is all based on my experiences and traveling to different countries and being in different situations and talking to different people, but it seems like culture shock is a symptom of an inflexible philosophy. Believing that the world IS a certain way, and then having to incorporate experiences which clearly indicate that the world is NOT that way. Or at least not that way universally. So if you grew up in a small town somewhere, and you have all these assumptions that you make, “well, people act this way, and this is how you get through life, this is where you buy things, this is where you go, this is who you talk to if you have problems.” All these assumptions about life, and then you go to a big city, or you go to another country or something, and you go through this thing called “culture shock” where you believed you knew something about the universe, something true, something fundamentally solid that you could rely on, but it turns out that you were actually believing in something not fundamental, something that was less than true in the universal sense. It was still true for where you were at the time, but it wasn’t universally true with a capital “T”. And I feel like I haven’t really had problems with that, ever since I’ve gone through my assumptions and really examined what it is that I believe, and why I believe it, and the really fundamental things that I hold.

(5:50) Those fundamental things have been changing up through my twenties, but I feel like now I’ve gotten to a point where I’ve held on to a few core beliefs… It would be difficult to say what those are at this point because they are so deep right now. But they’re there. Things like “God exists.” and “God is good.” and “God likes it when we find out new things about Him.” Things like this. Or “People are fundamentally selfish and self-serving.” Things like this where there are these really fundamental axioms that I can keep going back to and go “Yeah! This is… still true!” And I feel like those have gone (not unchallenged but) challenged and unchanged for long enough and often enough that I feel comfortable saying that I’ve come to a principled stance on the Universe. Not that I hold a bunch of opinions now, about all kinds of things, because like I said I don’t have opinions (as far as I can tell, or I try not to), but that I have a very few consistently reliable principles that I’ve been able to demonstrate to myself work in everyday life, that are pragmatically sound, and then I can use those to build opinions about anything.

And of course there’s always going to be a lot of cruft and little things hidden away in corners that I don’t know about or haven’t examined that crop up, where someone will ask me “Well, what do you think about this?” And I’m like “Well, um, I haven’t thought about it…” and all of a sudden there’s all these things where I’m assuming this, and I’m assuming that, and it’s very difficult to maintain this small number of assumptions, but I feel like I’ve gotten good enough at this point to be able to say this is what I do.

This is how I think.

(7:35) And, of course, I don’t derive everything from first principles every time someone asks me. Usually what happens is I’ll need to have a formed opinion about something for whatever reason (because someone asked about it, or because I need to take an action of some kind, take a stand on an issue, one of my children ask me a question about it… ) so if I have on opinion already formed, then usually I will take that opinion (it’s cached in my consciousness somehow. It has a cached value of “this is what you thought last time you thought about this thing”) and if I can recall that, it’s like “oh, ok, that seems to make sense.” Then I’ll run it through some checks, I’ll be like “Ok, does this comform with God being good? Does this conform with people being unreliable? Does this conform with some recent experiences?” I’ll run some recent related experiences by this principle that I’m going to express and be like “Does this stand up to the things I’ve experienced recently?” and if it passes all those things, then I just use that cached value, and I don’t re-derive the whole thing. I just use the cached value and say “this checks out, I think this is what is true.”

(8:33) And if it turns out that it’s not true, I can always go back and change that cached value, because that opinion is not a fundamental axiom, it’s just a derived value! If someone is like “well, what about this other thing that doesn’t match with that?” then I can always go back to my axioms, my fundamental principles, and alter that opinion, or play with it, or discuss it. I can shift those things around. It’s not going to break my world-view, because my world-view isn’t based on that opinion, it’s based on these few very fundamental axioms. Then, if I don’t have a cached value, I can always think for a minute and be like, “hmm let me think about that” and ponder for a minute, and derive from my axioms an opinion that seems to make sense in the context of the thing we’re talking about and the person I’m talking to, and then convey that. And that’s even better! Because then, it’s personalized, not only to myself, but also to this other person, because then I can take into account, not only what they think and the angle that they are approaching this from. And I try to do that even if I already have a formed opinion where someone will be like “What’s your opinion about this?” and I’ll be like, well, I do have an idea about this, and I’ve derived it already, and I think it makes sense… but if I have the time and I’ve got the luxury of a few moments to cognate on it, I can always go back to my axioms and then take what I think is the other person’s axioms, and synthesize those into something that… you know, the unity of those things so that I can find some common ground on which we can draw a conclusion. And then draw an opinion based on that subset! It’s not as robust because, almost always, the subset of opinions is less than sufficient to form something that makes sense so I ususally have to take some other assumptions that I have and kind of draw them in. But I try to take assumptions that are closest to the ones that this other person will probably hold true so that this conclusion, this opinion will apply to them as much as possible.

(10:20) And sometimes it doesn’t work. Sometimes someone is like, “Woah, that doesn’t make any sense!” and I’m like, “well, you know, I’m sorry I couldn’t perfectly synchronize my axioms, my fundamental truths that I believe about the Universe, and YOUR axioms.” And sometimes… occasionally I will set aside my axioms (if I know that the other person has some very fundamental strong beliefs) I’ll set aside some of my axioms and I will try to derive something, some truth, based on their axioms, if I believe theirs and my fundamental axioms are really not compatible. But that is… usually I say then, instead of “this is what I think”, basically I say “well, does this make sense to you?” Because then I’m not really saying something that I believe is true, but I’m saying something that I feel like should be true for the other person, if what they believe about the universe is true, then this opinion that I’m espousing should hold true for them. And then I try to derive something that’s as close to what I believe is Truth as possible so that they are drawn, by that conclusion, closer to a worldview that I believe is actually correct. So it’s… I try not to be deceptive about it… I try to make it clear that I’m deriving this based on some shared assumptions, or even some assumptions that I don’t hold but that I believe they hold. But I’m also doing it in order to kind of draw them into a more compatible truth-space, something that I think is more in-line with reality, as reality really is.

(12:02) So, Man! I mean… That’s a lot to say for someone who didn’t have anything to say! But this is how I come up with idea. This is where ideas come from, for me, is these very small set of well tested very solid principles that I’ve based, a lot, on the Scriptures, on the Holy Scriptures, on the Bible, and a lot on my own experiences, and a lot on the experiences that other people have talked to me about and I’ve really tried to get that set as elegantly tight as possible. Very elegant, very powerful, principled ideas, that can be used to derive a great number of other things. And yet those principles are very abstract and simple, God is good (in any sense that really matters. Good in the sense of anything that we know about being good, I mean that’s what God is. God is Good.) God is light, God is better than us, but we can be part of God! Like, in the whole, in the Gospel of salvation through Christ and his sacrifice and through His being is that! Is that we can be God! That He’s invited us into Godhood, and that we can have part of that, and that we can grow up into that! That it’s not blasphemy to say that man can become deity, because Christ did, and He invites us to do the same. So, like, these simple, very very potent tools, philosophical or intellectual tools, cornerstones to base other thoughts on. And from those things, and like I said it’s very difficult for me to dredge them up because they are so deep in my consciousness that it takes work to unearth them, and I don’t know if I’ve even said them all now, but Christ is a cornerstone.

(13:54) Christ is a cornerstone! And these are the foundations of my philosophy. So, it’s, I mean… They are there, and there’s a lot of other stuff built on top of them so I kind of have to clear away those things to get to them? These fundamental things, you know, eternal life, and God being the Author and Director of all experiences and all living things, and so there’s these assumptions that I can draw on and there is a lot build on top of them.

So, when I said “I don’t have opinions”… I DO have opinions but they are built on these fundamental ideas and the fundamental ideas have remained solid enough that I feel like I can say that they are sound. Now, but of course, there are times when those fundamental asumptions get challenged, and get kind of shifted around, and that is a really REALLY frightening scary weird experience because it’s this… the whole house of cards feeling, or… I’ve written about it a few times on my blog and I struggle to even express it because it’s such an alien cognitive process. Of being like “Here I am in the world. I have some things that I know are true.” The present is true. Right where I am, right now, is True. I can’t say otherwise, or I’ll go insane. That’s insanity, to say that the present is false, that my experience is not real. So I have to say that my experience is real, but I also want to be able to say that everyone else’s experience is real and the surest firmest way that I can do that is to affirm the document that most people through history, or the most people, as far as I can tell, have also affirmed. Which is the Scripture, the Bible! So this document has, it’s a cornerstone, it’s a foundation for me in order to be able to affirm as well and as best I can, everyone’s experiences in the universe.

(16:07) And so, to do those two things simultaneously is sometimes quite vertiginous, because there will be times when I will suddenly realize that something I thought was real was not real. Or something that I assumed the Scriptures said, uh, they do not in fact say. Or something that I have derived and taken as a fundamental principle, is not actually a fundamental principle! It’s something other than that! It’s an opinion that has been kind of shaken up and bubbled up from these assumptions that I have, and so, that’s a really weird feeling, of kind of, foundering in your own mind as the foundations shift and crumble and re-form to take a truer shape.

(17:00) And maybe what I have and hold to be true is not actually… well, and I’m certain of this actually… That what I take and hold to be true is not actually Truth with a capital “T”. Like… I keep trying to get closer to that, and I feel like I’ve gotten close enough now that I can build other opinions on those without those other opinions becoming invalidated when the fundamentals shift to a truer form. But there comes a time when you have to… (and well, in fact, this is every time) At all times one must derive practical conclusions from one’s philosophy, or else the philosophy is not true. You don’t actually believe it if you can’t draw practical conclusions from it, if you can’t live it, it’s not true! So…

(17:45) Because the only truth is God! And now we’re back to the fundamentals right? Like, how deep do you have to go before you’ve hit truth? So, a lot of these ideas come from the Scriptures. They’ve been kind of re-formed to make more sense to me. And I’ve re-shaped them around those… or maybe turned them into a different light so I can see them more clearly. So, I have these ideas that are not word-for-word quotes from scripture, but I feel like they are highly compatible. That they are the same ideas, they’re just turned in a different way so that they make sense from where I’m standing. So, like, the Apostle Paul talks about how those who would please God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder of those who earnestly seek Him. And I think that’s in… Romans (EDITORIAL NOTE: I was wrong! It’s actually Hebrews 11:6). But that’s not quite how I think of it. I’ve memorized that phrase, and I do think it’s true, but I can’t really look straight at that phrase and see it clearly, so I’ve re-phrased it and re-formed it so that it fits in my mind.

And maybe that’s not a good idea? Maybe it’s better to only hold the truths… but then you go back to, okay, what does it really mean to have language? And what does it really mean to have ideas? And what do those words really mean if you’re just going to quote it directly, you know, word for word, what does that actually stand for? So, you could go back to the Greek, or back to the Latin, or back to the Hebrew. You could go all the way back to meditating, and say, “Well, I’m not going to believe anything except what God tells me directly.” But I feel like that’s actually rejecting a lot of things that God’s telling you… or telling me. I mean, I don’t want to speak for anyone else, but I do all the time, so I’m going to do that! So! Just realize that if I’m saying “you” I really am talking about myself.

(19:33) So, if you get to a point where you’re saying, “Okay, well, I won’t believe the Scriptures. I won’t believe what other people say. I’m only going to believe what I know and what God tells me.” you’ve really rejected a great amount of experience that could be very useful to you. Because if you have to experience everything directly yourself, uh, you can’t use language! You can’t use any interactions with other people! You can only know what you, yourself, experience. And what you experience is not that much! I mean, our lives are short! And our minds are not that powerful! We can’t get very far on our own. And I think that’s one of the things that God teaches us. And, of course, if you’re not listening to those ideas then this will not be convincing to you at all, but if you have any sense of learning from others, any sense of communication (Which I love! I love communication! It’s one of the core things about who I am, that communication is valuable. That we really can share ideas with eachother through communication. But anyway…) if you have a sense of communication then I urge you to look into the scriptures, and look into what other people say, because these things are the principles, the ideas, the concepts that people have held true for a long period of time, have confirmed over and over again to be true. It’s science, basically! I mean, God’s Word is a scientific document of a great number of experiments that have been performed by people over the centuries and have confirmed the same fundamental truths over and over again, that God is good, that He loves us, that there is a fundamental order to the universe. A lot of the same things that modern agnostic or atheistic scientists have also discovered, that the universe is fundamentally understandable, that the world can be both principled and compatible with human happiness. There’s all these different things that the Scriptures have already taught us, and to learn them again is not a problem, but it’s just kind of a waste of your life if you have to re-prove everything over and over again for yourself.

(21:36) So I would encourage you to, if you have a sense of communication and community, to look at the scriptures, to look at religious documents, and find out what truth can be had there. Because I think there is a huge amount of truth that can be had there that is not incompatible at all with logic, with science, with a sound mind, with any of these things that you hear atheists saying “well, you know, I want to think for myself” Well, it’s like, “Okay! That’s fine! You can think for yourself! I think for myself!” And that’s what I’ve been saying, I have these principles, and I derive everything from them, I’m thinking all of these things for myself. But getting to those fundamental principles takes a very long time, and even with the aid of the Scripture it’s taken me… you know, I’m thirty years old now! It’s taken me until now to really kind of become comfortable with “Okay, you know, these principles kind of really do make sense. These principles really are solid. I can affirm them as being true in my experience.”

And I can’t imagine how long it would take if I did not have the scriptures as a starting point, if I started absolutely from scratch. Who knows where I would be? Way back in trying to still figure out if God is good or not, or trying to figure out if mankind is worth trusting or not! I mean, people spend their whole lives trying to struggle through these questions. That’s basically what I’m saying. People have already spent generations upon generations proving these principles to be true and writing them down and passing them on to their children that these things are true. And so I think the scriptures are really really super powerful in teaching us about how the universe really is and what we can believe about it.

So, now this has turned into Christianity and Scriptures. And I’m not even really comfortable saying “Christianity” because that’s a linguistic symbol that we have in our culture for something that I’m not sure if it’s the same as what I’m talking about. I’m not sure if that symbol represents, to YOU the listener, what it represents to me. To me, Christianity means Christ Jesus as a cornerstone of philosophy, a seed crystal on which to crystallize the rest of concept-space. Everything that we think! So that is “Christ-ianity” to me, that there is a Christ, that there is a deliverer who delivers us out of darkness into light. Light is that which reveals, and Christ is that Light. It’s so far down in the metaphorical space that I can’t even express it better than that. That’s all there is. But to me that’s what Christianity means.

Christianity doesn’t mean (to me, when I say that word, it doesn’t mean) uh, and here’s just some examples, kind of what it might mean to some other people because this is what I’ve heard other people say but I don’t really believe these things are true. Christianity might mean to you, that you shouldn’t dance, or you shouldn’t wear a certain length skirt, or you need to go to church on Sunday, or if you say the Lord’s Prayer, or go to Mass then that’s going to make sure that you go to some paradise eventually, or that there’s a… you know, there’s all these things that people believe, and they may be true or not. I’m not saying that those things are true, I’m not saying those things are not true, I’m just saying that that’s not what Christianity means to me. We’ve derived all these things based on some axioms and the derivation is not the thing that’s true. The thing that’s true is the foundation.

(25:04) I’m fairly certain at this point that the derived principles, the morals, the opinions that we have, can change. That’s find. And that a lot of people have accepted as True (with a capital “T”) all these vast array of opinions that were formed at previous times, and may even have in fact been true at previous times, and may still be true, or may not be true, but they’re not the things that are fundamentally reliable. Those fundamentally reliable things are the things that I would say are really true. And those things are, a lot of them, encoded in the Scriptures. They are codified so that we can remember them. So that we can learn about them more easily than by experiencing them directly ourselves.

So, if you’ve got some idea like, “It’s bad to gamble.” Sure, there’s a good example. So, ahh, gambling is evil right? So, uh, I don’t feel that gambling is a worthwhile pursuit. And I can derive that from my axioms. But if you want to gamble? Who am I to say that you shouldn’t? Certainly I will advise you not to, but that’s not an axiom for me. “Gambling is evil” is not an axiom for me at all! If you have a way… and I’m sure there’s a way that you can… and in fact I can! I can derive a way in which gambling is good! I can derive a path from the axioms, from the things I believe fundamentally is true, to say that everyone should gamble… because in fact everyone DOES gamble! And see here I’m doing it now!

So, that opinion. That, principle, that moral, is not the thing that we should be conveying to people. It’s not the thing that we should be holding up as a fundamental truth. It’s not something that we need to fret over if someone says “Well, that’s not true.” That’s okay! It’s okay for them to believe that that’s not true! Those things don’t actually matter that much! What matters is the fundamentals. Because if you can get someone on the same wavelength of the fundamental principles, then everything else is just logic, or rhetoric, or emotion, or preference, or, I mean, there’s a huge vast array of ways in which you can derive things based on the axioms! It’s a chaotic system! Philosophy is chaotic! You can have the same axioms, the same principles, and derive different things from it. And that’s fine! As long as you have the same axioms, you can all understand one another, and you can all get along! It’s fine! It’s okay!

(27:25) And I feel like Christians (and here I’m using the term not in the sense of “people who are Christ centered” but in the sense of “people who call themselves ‘Christians’ in a social sense”) that the people who are socially Christians have accepted at face value a great number of derived principles as fundamental principles. And so then they get very very upset, because of course if anyone challenges any of these derived principles (which they accept as fundamental principles) they get into that same situation that I was describing, of this foundering philosophical quandry of all the things you thought were solid turning into ocean and lapping against the surface of your mind and “Oh no!” like, that’s terrible! That’s a terrible feeling, and it makes them think that the universe is not solid, is not sound, is not true. That God is not real. That God is unreliable. And you can see how that would be a very upsetting feeling. And so then they get very upset with anyone who questions or draws into relief the questionableness of the things that they believe are true.

And the problem here is not that there have been some derived moral principles. The derived moral principles are fine! If someone doesn’t want to dance, that’s great. If someone doesn’t want to gamble, that’s great. If someone doesn’t want to drink wine, that’s great. All those things, they’re fine! It’s okay to do that. It’s okay to have those derived principles. That’s not the problem.

And the problem is not questioning those derived principles. That’s fine too! It’s okay to say, “Hey, why is drinking wrong?” or “Why is gambling wrong?” It’s okay to discuss these things.

The problem lies in someone accepting as a fundamental principle, something which is not a fundamental principle. Because that is accepting a lie! It is accepting something as really true, that which is not true, and it will lead to culture shock! Or any number of other things that we call by different names but are this same idea of having your fundamental principles proven to yourself to be not sound.

And that’s a very uncomfortable feeling.

And it will keep happening until whoever it is that’s holding this principle decides that that principle is not actually true, and changes it, and lets go of that fundamental thing. And that’s a hard thing to do! I’ve done it myself a number of times and it’s never been easy, and I don’t think it’s ever going to be easy, but it is incredibly important to be able to do that.

Here’s my call to action.

If you’re a Christian (if you call yourself a Christian) let go of as many fundamental principles as possible. You can always derive new ones later from the ones that are left over. But let go of everything that you can that you believe to be fundamentally true and hold to just the bare basics, because this will allow you to be incredibly flexible, it will keep you from having to get upset at people who have different ideas than you, and it will allow you to better enjoy the world as it actually is and not as you think it is, or have been raised to believe it is. And it won’t make you not a Christian (in the sense of a capital “C” person who follows Christ, person who loves Christ) because if that’s something that you really believe is true, then you can throw away a bunch of other stuff. You can throw away all the other moralistic principles that you think are really fundamentally true, because they’re not! And you can always derive them later, and you can always live by them if you can derive them from the fundamentals (which, I attest to you, you can, as I have done!) But you don’t need to hold these things are fundamentally true, and you can discuss them, and you can talk to other people about them, and you can be friends with people who don’t believe them to be true and it’ll be okay.

And I encourage you as a non-christian (someone who does not call themselves a Christian (either philosophically with a capital “C” or with a social sense, or whatever it is)) to also examine your fundamental ideas, examine your assumptions about the universe, and cut them down to their bare minumum. Throw away a lot of this stuff about political parties and humanism. I mean, there are a huge number of things that you can just toss out and re-derive if you need to. And you can live that way if you can derive it from your basic principles. And I attest to you that you can because I have done this on behalf of others who don’t believe the same things as myself. It’s not impossible! And, I would say, with practice, it’s not even that hard. So you can do those things, and I encourage you to do so because, again, it will make you more flexible. It will make you more able to adapt to the world as it actually is. To, as I would hope you would say, to a scientific view of the universe. A view that is divorced from personal preference and is in alignment with actual truth, with actual reality as it really is. And the fewer fundamental assumptions that you have, the more easily you will be able to align your ideas, your opinions, your concepts to that ideal of the world as it really is.

And for someone who is creative! For a creative person, again, pare it down to the bare minimum! Because then, if you want to make some work of fiction? Some work that is designed to portray a universe different from the one we’re living in? It will be much easier to do something really unique if you have only a few principles because then you can take one of those principles and tweak it, or alter it or shift it in some way, and suddenly then you can derive a whole new set of ideas and foundational concepts (which will be self-consistent because they are derived from a very few set of principles) and which will also be incredibly fresh and new and interesting and give you inspiration for all kinds of new works that you can do.

So I think this philosophical stance, of holding a very few principles and then deriving things from them is very sound, very useful, it’s worked great for me in practice, I’ve done it for long enough without any real problems that I feel like it’s fundamentally workable…

The problem being that, if you find out (Which inevitably you will. Inevitably I will!) that something you really held to be true is not in fact true, you’re going to have to go through that painful uncomfortable experience of adapting to the universe. And that’s… I mean… That’s no fun!

But, on the other hand… it’s the only thing that’s fun.

Thanks for listening, this has been Paul Spooner of the Paul Spooner Podcast. Have a great day.

Thanks so much again, this is Paul Spooner, and allow me to play you out!

[Marginally Musical Outro]

This season was supported by Patreon! I hate to break stuff up into releases, because I work on all kinds of things, and a lot of it, I feel like it’s too small to really “count”, but it all kind of adds up, so I just pick things that feel significant, as opposed to charging for everything. I don’t know, I’m not sure how this works exactly, so Patrons, if you’re listening, please let me know how you feel that this is all going, and if I’m being respectful of your resources, or not.

So! Thank you Daniel, Luke and Ryan for being patrons and helping me make cool stuff! And supporting my work. And being involved. And, uh, yeah, hoping to hear from you soon!


No Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Powered by Wordpress, theme by neuro