Slowly getting there

The book is advancing at steady pace. I’ve now arrived at the final third portion.

green is where I’m at

I’m doing lots of re-writes. But I think the book is much better this way.

The final part is proving to be the hardest part. It’s basically my summary of Jimianity.

I’ve decided to stick to the name Jimianity, by the way. Not sure if it’s the best marketing wise, but it’s the name I like best. Jimism sounds too much like an intellectual movement. Spandrellism fits that label (coincidentally, Spandrianity sounds horrible). But I think Jim’s ideas are cladistically closer to Christianity than to any -ism, so Jimianity makes most sense to me.

Anyway, I’m putting much thought into the last part. It’s tough. But I remind myself not to overcomplicate things. You just make your content and that’s about all you can do.

8 Comments

    1. No alphabetical list of anti-concepts, but definitely includes material on anti-concepts like pedophilia and racist.

  1. “Donaldism” (or Donaldicism, Donaldianity, etc) would be a more specific association with the person than “Jimianity”, yet also reminiscent of much more famous Donald that James A and his followers support for the position of Holy American Emperor.

    Incidentally, “James the A” would be a splendid name for a sovereign.

    1. Plus my avatar is based on Donald Duck so that works out pretty nicely 😂

      But it is too soon to call emperor Donald our public ally. Also, Jim’s blog is Jim’s blog, not Donald’s blog.

  2. Do you pray? I mean, at least in a person-to-person connection-reaffirming way, not necessarily in a requesting kind of way. (I sometimes do — I say stuff like “Holy One, I love you” and sometimes “… please love me.”)

    I can’t see how people who don’t have that inclination would be believable as religious teachers/reformers/innovators/whatever.

    E.g. Augustine is obviously 100% sincere throughout Confessions, even though his dogmatic formulations in City of God look like a load of crap to me.

      1. I’d certainly take seriously anything you write — I had mass-appeal in mind. I suppose you’re sympathetic toward this sort of inclination (which I take to have a genetic basis) and factor its widespread occurrence (I mean that lots of people, if not the majority, are so inclined) into your thinking?

        It’s a kind of imaginative tendency, I guess, and different “breeds” of people evince differing imaginative tendencies. E.g. my Jewish father doesn’t have any mythical imagination but strongly “feels the presence of God” while I am intensely mythically-imaginative, presumably deriving this tendency from my WASP mother, who’s always had a strong interest in fairy/folk tales.

        1. Well I have nothing against it, and certainly when the patriarch leads a family prayer before dinner I’m in favor.

          But it’s just not something I do, so I’d feel hypocritical emphasizing it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *