Which fictional world would be the most fun to vacation in?
You Would Hate It There
Daily Prompt, 26 August 2026: Which fictional world would be the most fun to vacation in?
The question carries a hidden assumption — that the worlds we love would be pleasant to occupy.
Almost none of them would.
Loving a world is a reader’s relationship with it: total immersion, total safety, and an exit available on every page. Visiting is a consumer’s relationship, and consumers ask duller questions.
I ask the duller questions for a living, which has spoiled me as a reader. I can no longer enter a fictional world without wondering what my standing in it would be.
So: five unromantic questions. What is the water like? Who treats you when you fall ill? What is your legal position as a foreigner? Is there anyone to complain to? And can you leave on the day you meant to?
Hogwarts is a school with a serious record of injury and death, and a single matron holding the line against children who fly, duel, and occasionally meet Dark wizards in corridors. In fairness, wizarding medicine outperforms ours: bones regrown overnight, injuries our hospitals would call permanent treated before dinner. None of which is available to you. You would arrive without a wand, which in that society is not an inconvenience but a social disadvantage. And if you are a Muggle, you will not find the castle at all — it presents itself to outsiders as a ruin with a sign advising them to keep out.
Middle-earth means weeks on foot between anywhere and anywhere else. Its medicine is better than the joke allows: Gondor keeps the Houses of Healing, with trained healers and genuine herb-lore, and the returning king’s hands are said to heal what they cannot. But the Houses are a war hospital in a besieged city, and their best healer is otherwise engaged becoming king. You would arrive in Gondor as an undocumented foreigner during a siege, which is the worst possible arrangement of nouns.
Wonderland runs the most efficient legal system in fiction: sentence first, verdict afterwards. Delightful to read. Ask yourself how it reads as a party to the proceedings.
Westeros everyone already concedes is spectatorial. Nobody who claims they would visit means they would like to attend a wedding.
A galaxy far, far away offers unregulated transport, no consular service worth the name, and slavery practised openly on the stops your itinerary will actually cross. The Republic outlawed it; Hutt space never noticed. There are pleasant planets, presumably. The itinerary has a habit of ending somewhere dusty.
The pattern is not accidental. We love the worlds with the most jeopardy, because jeopardy is what makes a story worth telling — and jeopardy is exactly what you pay a travel agent to remove.
The better a world is to read about, the worse it is to be in.
Fandom has this backwards, and cheerfully so.
The honest answer to this prompt, then, is somewhere nobody would put on a poster.
I would defend the dullest place in English literature.
In defence of the Hundred Acre Wood
No currency. No exchange rate, no tipping, no taxi from the airport, nobody to overcharge you.
No courts, no bureaucracy, and very little crime. Rabbit once organised a kidnapping and the matter was settled by lunchtime.
No enduring antagonist. Not a defeated one, not a dormant one, not one who returns in the third act. The local monsters — heffalumps, woozles, the Backson — exist mainly in the Wood’s imagination, and the imagining is done by the residents themselves.
The worst incident on record is a flood. The second worst is a misunderstanding about a jar.
Adventure is correctly scaled. The local expedition — an expotition — is an afternoon walk with a stated purpose that nobody minds failing to achieve. This is precisely the amount of jeopardy a holiday can absorb.
And the melancholic donkey is not fixed. Not converted, not given an arc, not told to try harder. His house falls down and his friends rebuild it — in the original account, out of the very sticks they had unwittingly taken from it — and not one of them suggests the falling down is his fault.
Yes, it is boring.
That is the argument, not a concession to it.
Everyone wants a story to tell; almost nobody wants to be inside one while it is happening.
A story, experienced from the inside, is simply a stretch of time in which you cannot rest and events are outside your control. We call that a crisis when it happens to us and a plot when it happens to someone we are reading about.
A holiday is the deliberate purchase of a few days with no plot in them at all.
The test of a destination is not what could happen there. It is what could go wrong, how far wrong, and whether anyone would help.
Measured that way, a wood of a hundred acres, a small and settled population, a reliable honey supply and no history to speak of beats every world that arrives with a map in the front of the book.
Your turn — and not which world you love. Which one would you last a fortnight in, and come home glad?
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 26 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
If you could go back and witness any historical event, which one would you pick?
The Water Clock
If you could go back and witness any historical event, which one would you pick?
It is a spring morning in Athens and the court has no roof. Five hundred men sit on wooden benches in the open air, chosen at dawn by lot — potters, farmers, a shipwright with salt still in the creases of his hands. Some of them will sleep.
At the front a bronze vessel drips water into a second below: a man’s allotted time, measured not in minutes but in water. When the upper jar runs dry you stop speaking, mid-sentence if need be.
The charges: that the accused does not acknowledge the gods the city acknowledges, that he introduces new divinities, that he corrupts the young.
Then the old man stands. Seventy, barefoot, famously ugly, and he does not do what the court expects. He does not weep, has not brought his sons out to soften them, and says so, and says why — and the benches make a low sound. Thorubos, the Athenians called it: the murmur of a crowd deciding something. That is the sound I want. Anger? Delight? Or the noise a room makes when it understands that something has gone too far to be stopped?
Athens, 399 BCE. That is my answer, and here is the unromantic reason for it.
I would go as a witness in the narrow, legal sense — not to feel the day, but to fix the record. Because the record is terrible.
Almost everything we know of that trial comes from two men who loved him. Plato wrote years afterwards, a work of art rather than a transcript. Xenophon wrote another and was not even in Athens; he had it secondhand. Both are titled Apology — not apology, but defence speech, a literary genre with its own conventions and its own permissions. Neither is a stenographer’s page; there were no stenographers. Even the count, some two hundred and eighty against to two hundred and twenty for, reaches us through a compiler working six centuries later.
The most famous trial in Western memory survives as a partisan reconstruction, a genre exercise by an absent friend, and a late piece of arithmetic. In any court I would trust, that is not a record — it is hearsay with excellent prose style.
Take the seat and you could settle it: what was charged, in what words; whether he really proposed, as his own penalty, that the city feed him at public expense for life — an answer so precisely calculated to lose that I have never decided whether it is true or merely improved.
Then the honest limit, which the fantasy always skips.
A witness establishes what was said, never why. I could give you the words and the tally, not what moved two hundred and eighty men to raise a hand — piety, the long memory of the Thirty and the well-born young men he had taught, fatigue, the opinion of the man three benches down. Motive never enters the record. It stays in the room and leaves with the people.
Worse: I would come back carrying a memory, and memory is the instrument on trial here. Witnesses compress, smooth, acquire certainty about details they never saw, and do it in perfect good faith. I would return no more reliable than Plato — only more confident.
So the real reason is smaller, and harder to admit. I would want to know what it looked like from the benches: whether five hundred ordinary men, walking home to their suppers, understood that they had just made it a capital matter to ask the wrong questions in public — or whether it felt like an unremarkable Tuesday, a bit long, hot, and probably correct.
I suspect the second. That is the finding worth travelling for: not that injustice is loud, but that it is procedural, well attended, and adjourns on time.
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 25 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
If you had to get a tattoo right now, what would it be and why?
A tattoo artist asks three questions: what, where, and how large. They are the questions of a trade. There is a fourth he never asks, and it is the only one that matters.
This reflection takes an ordinary writing prompt and follows it into the comparative ground where four great traditions have thought carefully about the marked body. Their disagreement is about ink. Their agreement is about motive — and about the danger of allowing a sign to substitute for the thing it signifies.
Written from the perspective of someone who has spent a lifetime shaping words meant to endure, only to witness how few of them do.
Three Questions at the Counter
What one word would you carry on your skin — and what would that choice reveal?
WordPress Daily Writing Prompt | 24 August 2026
Prompt: If you had to get a tattoo right now, what would it be and why?
I have never set foot in a tattoo studio. But suppose I did — this morning, at my age, with four decades of ink of a very different kind behind me.
The artist would not be startled. He has seen older men than me come through that door, usually after a funeral or a diagnosis. He would put down his coffee, open a folder, and ask the three questions he asks everyone.
“What do you want?”
Not a design, I would tell him. A word.
He would wait, pen ready, expecting a name. A date. Somebody’s initials inside a heart.
Nevertheless.
Four syllables. Twelve letters. It is the least decorative word in the language, and I have loved it for most of my working life. In the statutes I drafted, words like that one did the heavy lifting — the small hinges on which large consequences turned. Everything before the conjunction is the situation as it stands. Everything after it is what shall now be done regardless.
It is also, if you look, the word most traditions have been trying to write on the body all along. Not the fact, but the defiance of it. The Baiga women of central India believed the godna on their skin was the one possession that would travel with them past death — everything else surrendered, this alone carried through. That is a nevertheless in ink.
“Where do you want it?”
On the palm, I would say.
He would shake his head. Palms are the one place ink will not hold. The skin there renews itself too quickly, the hand is used too hard, the lines are too deep. Whatever you put on a palm fades within the year. Choose the wrist. Choose the forearm. Anywhere but there.
And I would sit with that, because it is one of the more interesting facts I know.
Notice how much of the world’s marking gathers at the hand anyway, knowing it will not last. Henna on a bride’s palms in Kerala and in Cairo, elaborate beyond reason, gone in a fortnight. The tilaka pressed on the forehead at dawn and wiped away by evening. Pilgrims to Jerusalem taking the same cross from the same family of tattooists for seven hundred years, on the arm, where it will hold — but the ordinary devotion of ordinary days goes on the palm, where it will not.
There is a shrewdness in that. The deepest things are marked in the places that cannot keep a mark. What has to be reapplied daily is what has to be chosen daily.
“How large?”
Small, I would say. Very small.
He would push back, gently, the way a good craftsman does. At that size the letters crowd. Nobody will read it. What is the use of a word nobody can read?
But that is the point. The great truths have never needed large letters. A vow is eight words. A verdict is one. The most consequential sentence ever spoken over a human being takes up less space than a shopping list. It is the trivial that has to shout; what is true can afford to whisper.
Small enough to be private, I would tell him. Large enough that when somebody takes my hand at a hospital bedside and their own hand is shaking, they can read it at that distance. Twelve letters. Nevertheless.
Then he would set down his pen, because his three questions are done. What, where, how large. Those are the questions of a trade. He has no fourth.
But there is a fourth, and it is the only one that matters.
“Why?”
Here the traditions, which disagree about nearly everything else, turn out to agree with one another almost completely.
They disagree about the ink. Islamic jurisprudence, in the main, holds permanent tattooing forbidden — an alteration of fitra, the created nature a person is given rather than authors. Hindu thought carries two impulses at once: the body as an instrument to be consecrated, and the Vedantic warning that to identify with the perishable is to mistake the vehicle for the traveller. The Levitical prohibition, shared by Jews and Christians, was aimed narrowly at cultic self-marking for the dead, and has been read broadly ever since.
But on motive they converge, and they converge hard. Marking as identity, protection or consecration is tolerated nearly everywhere. Marking as self-display is commended nowhere. Not in any of them.
And there is a third thing none of them permits: letting the visible sign stand in for the invisible thing it was supposed to point to. The mark on the skin is easy. The inscription on the character is the labour of a lifetime. Where the first is offered as evidence of the second, something has quietly gone wrong.
So I would stand up at that point, and thank the man, and walk out without it.
Not because the word was wrong. Because the word is not meant for the skin, and putting it there would have been the cheaper way of keeping it.
That is the harder art, and no studio in the world can do it for you.
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Founder and Principal Author, Rise & Inspire
What word would you carry — and would you put it on your skin, or somewhere it costs you more to keep?
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 24 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 23 August 2026 — “How did you meet your significant other?”
I
The question carries a hidden premise, and the premise is that there was a time when the two of you did not know each other.
It assumes a meeting: two separate parties, previously unacquainted, brought together on a particular day by chance or design, after which everything was different. It is a good assumption for most attachments. It is not a good assumption for the deepest ones. There are relations we do not enter into. We wake up already inside them, and the only discovery available to us is the discovery of what we have belonged to all along.
I want to write about one of those, and about what it taught me — which is a lesson not about affection at all, but about what a State is, and what survives the death of one.
II
My mother’s place and my father’s place lie a few hours apart. For every generation before mine, they were places in the same country. Both belonged to Thiruvithamcore — Travancore — a princely State with its own Government, its own courts, its own statute book, and a coastline that ran from the Arabian Sea deep into the south.
Then, on 1 November 1956, the States Reorganisation Act came into force, and the map was redrawn on the principle of language. Travancore-Cochin, which Travancore had by then become, was reconstituted. Most of it went to form the new State of Kerala, together with Malabar and Kasaragod. But four southern taluks — Thovala, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam and Vilavancode — together with Shencottah, were transferred to Madras State, which would later be renamed Tamil Nadu.
The four taluks became Kanyakumari district.
Nobody moved. No family was displaced, no house was vacated, no one packed anything. And yet, between one day and the next, my father’s homeland and my mother’s homeland suddenly fell on opposite sides of a new State boundary. The line did not run between two peoples who had been apart. It ran through a people who had been together, and it was drawn by a Parliament sitting two thousand kilometres away, on a principle — linguistic homogeneity — that was reasonable in the general case and simply blind in the particular one.
That is the whole of the personal part of this essay. I set it down not because my family is interesting, but because it is the doorway to something that is.
III
Here is what ought to have happened next, if a State were the sort of thing our intuitions take it to be.
Travancore had legislated for a century and a half. It had laws of land tenure, of registration, of succession, of religious endowment, of local administration — a mature and in many respects an advanced statute book. When the polity that made those laws ceased to exist and its territory was parcelled between two successors, the natural expectation is that its laws died with it. A law is an act of a sovereign will. Remove the will, and the act should fall.
It did not fall. It could not be allowed to fall.
Consider what a legal vacuum would have meant on the morning of 1 November 1956. Every title to land held under a Travancore tenure would have become unprovable. Every marriage solemnised under a Travancore enactment would have hung in doubt. Every pending prosecution would have lost the section under which it was launched. Every registered instrument, every mortgage, every trust, every settlement of a temple’s affairs would have been suspended in mid-air. Not disputed — merely undocumented by any law then in force, which is worse.
So the Constitution and the reorganisation statute did what such instruments always do. Article 372 had already provided, at the founding, that laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution should continue in force until altered by a competent authority. The States Reorganisation Act carried the same logic through the redrawing of the map: the reconstitution of territories was not to be treated as having altered the extent of any law then in force, and territorial references in existing laws were to be read as meaning the territories to which they applied immediately before the appointed day, until a competent Legislature provided otherwise.
Which is to say: Travancore’s laws continued to operate in Kanyakumari district after Travancore had ceased to exist, in a State that had never enacted them, over a population that was no longer its own.
The sovereign was gone. The statute book kept speaking.
IV
I find that fact more moving than I can easily justify, and I have spent a long time working out why.
Part of it is professional. A person who has spent his working life in the Government Secretariat at Thiruvananthapuram, in the service of the Government of Kerala, and who returns each time to a district where Travancore’s enactments had never quite stopped speaking, is standing at a seam that most people never see. The revenue records of that district still carry the vocabulary of a vanished administration. The tenures have Travancore names. The categories in which land is held were invented by clerks in an office that no longer exists, for a Maharaja who no longer reigns, in a State that is no longer on any map. And they still determine who owns what.
But the larger part of it is not professional at all. It is this: we habitually mistake which part of a polity is the real one.
We think the real State is the flag, the boundary, the seat of Government, the name on the map — the visible apparatus. And the visible apparatus turns out to be the most fragile part. It can be dissolved by a statute in an afternoon. What proves durable is the sediment: the law, the record, the practice, the habit of a people who have been governed a particular way for a long time. That is not administered from the capital. It is deposited in the ground.
A State is not abolished when its Government is dissolved. It is abolished when the last of its law has been repealed and the last of its practice forgotten, and that takes generations, and sometimes it never happens at all.
V
Now return to the question we began with.
We are all born into a set of attachments that we did not choose, cannot resign from, and did not meet. A language was in the air before we could speak it. A faith was practised in the house before we could assent to it. A body of custom shaped what our elders thought obvious, and they passed it to us as though it were the nature of things rather than one arrangement among many. A political and legal order determined, before we were consulted, whose courts would hear us and whose statutes would bind us.
None of that was met. All of it was inherited.
And I have come to think that the moral life consists very largely in what we do with the inheritance — because the one thing we cannot do is pretend to have arrived at it freshly. There is no neutral ground from which to evaluate what formed us. We assess our inheritance with faculties that our inheritance gave us. The honest position is not to claim independence from it but to know it well enough to be answerable for it: to keep what is worth keeping, to amend what needs amending by the proper procedure, and never to imagine that repealing a thing removes it from the ground.
Borders are provisional. Governments are provisional. What we have been formed by is not.
VI
So: how did I meet my significant other?
I did not. A line was drawn through a family, a State was dissolved, and its laws went on quietly governing the district where I was raised — and I discovered, many years later and by profession, that I had been living inside a relationship that predated my capacity to notice it.
The meeting, when it came, was not an introduction. It was recognition.
John Britto Kurusumuthu Rise & Inspire
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
Rise & Inspire | Wake-Up Calls — The Sunday Series | Sunday, 23 August 2026
Sunday Bible Series No. 2 — Ecclesiastes 7:29, read with Mark 4:22 and the verses of the week
OPENING
There is a particular kind of tiredness that has nothing to do with work.
It is the tiredness of the rehearsal. You are in the shower, or on the road, or lying awake at half past two, and you are composing. Not a poem — a version. The version of yourself you will present tomorrow at the meeting. The sentence that will make the refusal sound like generosity. The tone that will let you say the difficult thing without ever having to own it. The paragraph in the email that could be read two ways, so that if it goes badly you can point to the other reading.
Nobody teaches us this. We are astonishingly good at it without instruction.
And here is the strange part. The rehearsal is exhausting, and we know it is exhausting, and we do it anyway — because somewhere along the line we became convinced that the straight version of ourselves would not survive contact with the world. So we build. We build approaches, angles, hedges, fallback positions, plausible deniabilities. We build them at work and we build them at home. We build them, God help us, in prayer.
Three thousand years ago, a man who had spent his life examining human beings with unsentimental care sat down and wrote the one conclusion he was prepared to stand behind. It is a single sentence. It explains the tiredness better than anything written since.
THE PASSAGE
See, this alone I found, that God made human beings straightforward, but they have devised many schemes. — Ecclesiastes 7:29
And its companion for this week, from the lips of Jesus:
For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. — Mark 4:22
Read them together and a whole spiritual life opens up. One tells you what you have built. The other tells you how long it will last.
BIBLICAL CONTEXT
Who is speaking, and why it matters
The book calls its speaker Qoheleth — a Hebrew word usually rendered “the Preacher” or “the Teacher,” though it more literally suggests one who gathers or assembles, whether a congregation or a body of findings. He presents himself in the opening chapters as a son of David, a king in Jerusalem, and the Solomonic voice is unmistakable in the experiments of chapters 1 and 2: wisdom, pleasure, building, wealth, all tried and all weighed.
Most scholars today read that royal voice as a deliberate literary persona rather than a claim of authorship, largely on linguistic grounds — the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes carries Aramaic influence and at least two Persian loanwords, which points to a period long after Solomon, somewhere in the later Persian or early Hellenistic centuries. Not everyone agrees, and the question does not finally alter the meaning of our verse. What matters is the posture the persona creates: here is a man with every resource a human being could want, reporting honestly on what he found when he used them all to search for the meaning of things.
Where the verse sits
Our sentence is the last line of chapter 7, and it is the conclusion of a specific and rather anguished passage. From verse 23 onward, Qoheleth describes a search that failed. He set out to be wise and found wisdom beyond his reach. He describes turning his heart to know, to search out, and to seek the reckoning of things — and coming up short again and again. Verses 26 to 28 are among the most difficult and disputed in the book, and honest readers should say so; the speaker is at his most bitter and most obscure there, and interpreters differ sharply over whether he is stating a conviction, quoting a proverb he intends to undercut, or recording the sourness of a mind that has looked too long at human deceit.
Then, at verse 29, the fog lifts. This alone I found. One thing, and one thing only, came back clean from the whole investigation.
That is the literary weight of the verse. It is not one observation among many. It is the single load-bearing conclusion of a long and frustrated search — the one finding Qoheleth was willing to put his name to.
The theological background
Behind the sentence stands Genesis. Qoheleth does not cite the creation account, but he is clearly standing inside it: God made humanity, and God made humanity good. He is not offering a doctrine of the fall in any technical sense; he is offering an observation that any careful person can verify. The design was simple. The execution is not. And the gap between them was not manufactured in heaven.
This is wisdom literature doing what wisdom literature does. It does not thunder. It watches, and then it tells you what it saw.
LEXICAL NOTES
Two Hebrew words carry the verse, and one of them contains a small shock.
*יָשָׁר — yāshār. Straight. Level. Even. The word belongs first to physical description — a road without bends, ground without dips — and from there it moves naturally into moral description: upright, honest, right. It is the word behind the great biblical image of the highway made straight. To be yāshār* is to have no detour in you: what you appear to be going towards is where you are actually going.
Notice that Qoheleth does not say God made us holy, or perfect, or innocent. He says God made us straight. The original human design was not complicated. Point to point. Word matching intention. Face matching heart.
*חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת — ḥishshəbōnôt. Translated “schemes,” “devices,” “contrivances.” Here is the shock: this noun appears only twice in the entire Hebrew Bible. Once here — and once in 2 Chronicles 26:15, where King Uzziah installs on the towers and corners of Jerusalem the engines*, devised by skilful men, for shooting arrows and hurling great stones.
Siege engines. War machines.
The same word. Qoheleth looks at what human beings have made of themselves and reaches for the vocabulary of military engineering. Our complications are not idle. They are ordnance. They are built by skilled hands, mounted on the walls, and aimed at somebody.
The root beneath both words is ḥāshab — to think, to calculate, to reckon, to plot. And this quietly ties the verse back to Qoheleth’s own search, because the noun ḥeshbôn, the “sum” or “reckoning” he was hunting for a few verses earlier, comes from the same root. He went looking for the reckoning of life. What he found instead was that humanity is full of reckonings — of its own devising.
One further detail. The Hebrew shifts number mid-sentence. God made hā’ādām — humanity, singular, one — straight. Then: wəhēmmāh, “and they,” plural, sought out many devices. The unity of the design fractures into a plurality of contrivances within a single line. God made onestraight thing. They made many crooked ones. The grammar itself performs the fall.
And from Mark 4:22, one Greek observation worth having. Jesus uses two words for concealment — krypton, hidden, and apokryphon, secret, tucked away — and attaches to each a purpose clause: hina phanerōthē, “in order that it may be made manifest.” The construction is startling. He does not say hidden things will eventually be found out, as a warning. He says hidden things exist for the purpose ofbeing disclosed. Concealment, in the economy of God, is never a permanent state. It is a stage.
READING THE PASSAGE CLOSELY
Slow down over the sentence and several things surface.
“This alone I found.” Not “among other things.” Alone. After everything, one certainty.
“God made.” The straightness is not our achievement, and therefore not ours to be proud of. It is given. It is original equipment.
*“They devised” — or more exactly, “they sought out.” The verb is biqshû, from a root meaning to seek, to search for, to pursue. This is the crucial thing the English “devised” slightly softens. The schemes did not descend on us. We went looking for them. There was an appetite. There was effort. Complication is something we want*.
“Many.” The contrast is not merely straight versus crooked. It is one versus many. Straightness has a single form. Deviousness is infinitely various — which is exactly why it is so absorbing, and why it feels so much like intelligence.
Now, what the text does not say, because the discipline matters:
It does not say that human inventiveness is evil. Qoheleth is not condemning engineering, planning, or forethought; the same book urges us to work with all our might. It does not say we are incapable of good. It does not name Adam, or the serpent, or offer any account of how the schemes began. And it does not, in this verse, offer a remedy.
It simply tells the truth about the gap, and leaves the reader standing in it.
THE WEEK’S SEVEN VERSES
Each of the seven verses shared this week by His Excellency, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Selvister Ponnumuthan, Bishop of the Diocese of Punalur, turns out to sit somewhere along this one line of thought — from the exposure of what we hide to the God who meets us when we stop hiding.
Monday, 17 August — Mark 4:22. Nothing hidden that will not be disclosed.
Tuesday, 18 August — Hebrews 6:3. And we will do this, if God permits.
Wednesday, 19 August — Wisdom 1:2. He is found by those who do not put him to the test.
Thursday, 20 August — Jeremiah 15:20. They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail.
Friday, 21 August — Hebrews 1:6. Let all God’s angels worship him.
Saturday, 22 August — Psalm 59:10. My God in his steadfast love will meet me.
Sunday, 23 August — Ecclesiastes 7:29. God made human beings straightforward, but they have devised many schemes.
SCRIPTURAL CONNECTIONS
The first scheme was a hiding place. In Genesis 3, the very first consequence of the first disobedience is not violence or theft. It is concealment: a covering hastily assembled, and then two people among the trees, listening for footsteps. Ecclesiastes 7:29 is Genesis 3 rendered as a proverb. The devices came in with the hiding, and they have never left.
And hiding has a shelf life. This is where Mark 4:22answers Ecclesiastes. Jesus is teaching in parables about lamps and measures and seed, and he says plainly that nothing is concealed except in order to be revealed. Set that beside Qoheleth and the whole arithmetic changes. Yes, we have built many devices. But every one of them is temporary construction on land that God intends to clear. Luke records the same teaching with sharper edges — what was whispered in inner rooms will be announced from rooftops. Paul says the Lord will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and disclose the purposes of the heart. The New Testament is remarkably consistent: exposure is coming, and for those who belong to Christ, exposure is mercy, because it is the end of the exhausting rehearsal.
The most religious scheme of all is hedged trust.Wisdom 1:2 says God is found by those who do not put him to the test, and shows himself to those who do not distrust him. The Greek peirazō means to test, to try, to put through a trial — and it is the language of the wilderness, where Israel demanded proof before it would walk. Testing God looks like faith and is actually a device: it is trust with a fallback position, belief that has quietly reserved the right to withdraw. It is the ḥishshābôn of the spiritual life, a siege engine mounted on the walls of the heart and aimed at heaven. Wisdom’s promise is beautiful in its simplicity — put down the machine and you will find him. He was never the one hiding.
Even our calendars can be un-schemed.Hebrews 6:3 contains four of the most quietly counter-cultural words in Scripture: if God permits. The writer has just rebuked his readers for lingering over elementary teaching when they should have moved on to maturity, and he says: we will go forward — if God permits. He does not say it as a pious flourish. He says it as a person who has stopped assuming that his plans are the same thing as his future. James says it more bluntly: you do not know what tomorrow brings, so learn to say if the Lord wills. This is straightness applied to ambition. Most of our scheming is simply an attempt to guarantee an outcome that was never ours to guarantee.
Straightness costs something, and God knows it.The obvious objection to all of this is practical: the schemes exist because the world is dangerous. Drop your defences and you will be eaten. Jeremiah 15:20 meets that objection head-on. Context is everything here. This is God’s reply to one of Jeremiah’s bitterest complaints — the prophet has accused God of being unreliable, like a stream that dries up in summer. God’s answer begins with a correction: if you return, I will restore you; speak what is precious and not what is worthless. Only then comes the promise — a wall of bronze, opposition that fights but does not prevail, because God is with him to save. The order is not accidental. First the call to straightness. Then the promise of protection. God does not tell Jeremiah to build better defences. God tells him to be honest, and then offers to be the defence.
And the God who defends us arrives first.Psalm 59:10 is sung from a house under surveillance — the superscription connects it to the night Saul’s men watched David’s door. It is a psalm written by someone who has genuine reason to scheme. And its confidence is startling: my God, in his steadfast love, will meet me. The Hebrew verb qādam means to come to meet, to go before, to anticipate. Translations differ slightly on whether the love in question is called his or mine — a small textual question the versions handle in different ways — but the movement is unambiguous. Ḥesed, that great covenant word for a loyal love that will not let go, does not wait at the destination. It goes on ahead. It is already there when you arrive. You are not walking towards a God who must be persuaded. You are walking towards a God who set out before you did.
Finally, the one who never needed a scheme.Hebrews 1:6 places before us the Firstborn, brought into the world, worshipped by all God’s angels. The Greek prōtotokos speaks of rank and inheritance rather than mere chronology — the position of the heir, the one in whom everything is summed up. And the Firstborn was, in the most exact sense, yāshār. Straight. There was no gap in him between word and heart, appearance and reality, public face and private self. He had no rehearsal. He needed no fallback position. When he was silent it was not evasion, and when he spoke there was no second meaning held in reserve. He is what Ecclesiastes 7:29 says we were made to be — and he came, in part, to give it back.
INTERPRETIVE INSIGHTS
Our defences are aimed at people who are not attacking us. The siege-engine image cuts deep once you sit with it. Uzziah’s machines were built for a city under genuine threat. Most of ours are not. The carefully ambiguous email, the managed version of the marriage we present at gatherings, the qualification added to the compliment — these are war machines trained on colleagues, spouses, children, friends. We are in a permanent defensive posture against people who never laid siege.
Complication feels like competence. This is why the schemes are so hard to surrender. Deviousness is genuinely clever. It requires memory, timing, social intelligence, a capacity to model other minds. The straight answer, by comparison, feels naive — almost embarrassing. Qoheleth’s verse quietly refuses that valuation. He does not call the schemes stupid. He calls them many, and he sets them against the one thing God actually made. The many are impressive. The one is true.
Concealment is more tiring than exposure. Every hidden thing must be maintained. It requires a running account in the background of the mind: who knows what, which version was given to whom, what must not be mentioned in front of which person. Anyone who has lived with a secret knows that the fear of discovery is often worse than discovery itself. Mark 4:22 is usually preached as a warning. It can equally be heard as a release: the maintenance contract has an expiry date, and you are permitted to let it lapse early.
Straightness is not the same as bluntness. This needs saying, because the verse can be misused. Yāshār means no gap between what you are and what you show. It does not mean saying every true thing you think to every person you meet. Scripture praises restraint, discretion and the well-timed word as consistently as it condemns deceit. Silence is not a scheme. Tact is not a scheme. The scheme begins where the intention diverges from the presentation — where you are steering someone towards a conclusion you would not defend openly.
Where interpreters differ. Ecclesiastes has always been read in more than one register. Some read Qoheleth as a resigned pessimist whose book is redeemed only by its final editorial verses; others read him as a faithful realist clearing away illusions so that genuine trust in God has somewhere solid to stand. Our verse arguably supports the second reading, since it affirms both a good Creator and a real human responsibility. But honesty requires acknowledging the debate rather than flattening it.
THE CENTRAL TENSION
Strip everything away and this passage asks one question, and it is not a comfortable one.
Do I want to be safe, or do I want to be known?
Every scheme is a bid for safety. Every one is also a small refusal to be known. That is the trade we make, usually without noticing, often before we are twenty, and then we keep making it for forty years and call the resulting exhaustion “life.”
The passage does not tell us the schemes never work. Sometimes they work beautifully. It tells us something more disturbing: that they were never part of the design, that we went looking for them ourselves, and — reading it alongside Mark — that they are built on ground scheduled for demolition.
Which leaves each of us with a genuinely open decision. You can dismantle the machinery yourself, in the presence of a God whose steadfast love has already come out to meet you. Or you can wait until it is dismantled for you.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US TODAY
In the family. Most households run on unspoken arrangements: things that are not discussed, versions of events everyone has agreed to accept, a peace maintained by careful avoidance. Some of that is ordinary kindness. Some of it is a siege engine on the roof, and the whole family can feel it up there.
In marriage. The most common marital device is not deception; it is editing. The report of the day that omits the conversation. The feeling registered and immediately filed. It is understandable — we edit to avoid conflict. But a person who is only ever given the edited version is, over years, living with someone they have never actually met.
At work and in leadership. Institutions reward the ambiguous sentence. The minute that could be read two ways, the approval that commits to nothing, the praise engineered to make a later refusal easier. Anyone who has spent a career near files and committees knows exactly how this is done, and knows that it is often called professionalism. Straightness in institutional life does not mean indiscretion. It means that when you finally do commit yourself to a position, everybody knows it is really yours.
Online. Social media is ḥishshəbōnôt at industrial scale — a technology purpose-built for the maintenance of a curated self. The tiredness people report after an hour of scrolling is partly comparison, but it is also the strain of curation: we are all up on the walls, adjusting the machines, checking the angles.
In prayer. This is the strangest place to find schemes, and the most common. Prayer that reports rather than confesses. Prayer that presents the acceptable version of a grief. Prayer that bargains — the hedged trust Wisdom 1:2 gently refuses. Nothing is hidden from God in the first place, which means prayer is the one room in the universe where the machinery is pure dead weight.
In ageing and in failure. There comes a point, often in the second half of life, when maintaining the devices simply costs more than it returns. People sometimes call this decline. It may be the beginning of straightness — the recovery of something that was there before we ever started building.
A RISE & INSPIRE MOMENT
We were made as a road. We have turned ourselves into a fortress.
A road exists to connect. It is judged by whether it reaches. A fortress exists to withstand, and it is judged by whether anyone gets in.
The tragedy is not that we are bad at defending ourselves. The tragedy is that we have become very good at it — and that the walls went up around a life that was designed to be travelled.
LIVING THE PASSAGE THIS WEEK
1. Retire one machine. Identify a single specific device you routinely deploy — the deliberately vague reply, the excuse you have used so often it has become furniture, the topic you steer conversations away from. Just one. Retire it for seven days and observe what actually happens. Not what you fear will happen. What happens.
2. Send the straight sentence. This week, one message that you would normally hedge, write plainly. State the position, own it as yours, and do not append the softening clause that would let you retreat from it later. Courtesy stays. The escape hatch goes.
3. Pray one unedited prayer. Sit down and say to God the thing you have been giving him in a revised version — the resentment, the doubt, the request you consider unspiritual. Jeremiah accused God of being an unreliable stream and received an answer, not a rebuke. Nothing is hidden anyway. You are not informing God; you are stopping the pretence.
4. Add “if God permits” to one plan — and mean it.Take a plan you are quietly determined to force into existence, and consciously hand the outcome back. Say the words of Hebrews 6:3 over it. Then notice how much of your scheming was only anxiety about an outcome you were never in charge of.
5. Let one thing be disclosed early. Is there something small you have concealed that will eventually surface — an error at work, a forgotten commitment, a debt of honesty to someone? Mark 4:22 says its disclosure is only a matter of time. Choose the time. Disclosing on your own terms is almost always cheaper than being disclosed on someone else’s.
QUESTIONS FOR PERSONAL REFLECTION
1. What exactly does Ecclesiastes 7:29 claim about how God made us — and what does it claim about what we have done since?
2. Where in my life is there the widest gap between the version of me that people see and the person I actually am?
3. Which of my complications did I inherit from fear, and which did I go looking for because they made me feel capable?
4. Am I testing God — trusting him while keeping a fallback position — and what would trust without the fallback actually require of me this week?
5. If nothing hidden will remain hidden, what is one thing I would rather bring into the light myself than have brought there for me?
PRAYERFUL RESPONSE
Lord God,
You made me straight, and I have spent years learning to bend. I have built defences against people who were not my enemies, and rehearsed versions of myself that even I no longer believe. You know how tired it has made me.
Forgive the ingenuity I have spent on hiding, and the trust I have offered you with conditions attached. Take down what I have built. I will not manage the demolition well, so do it patiently, and do it kindly.
Teach me to say the true thing plainly, to hold my plans loosely and say honestly that I will do this if you permit, and to believe that your steadfast love has already come out along the road to meet me.
Make me straight again — not hard, not blunt, but whole: one person, in the light, at last unafraid to be seen.
Through Christ, the Firstborn, in whom there was never any gap at all.
Amen.
KEY TAKEAWAY
You were not made complicated. Everything crooked in you is construction — and construction can come down.
THE DEEPEST TAKEAWAY
Stop spending your life managing appearances. God already knows the unedited version of you. You can therefore live in the light, speak truthfully, hold your plans loosely, and trust His steadfast love.
CLOSING
Somewhere in the day ahead you will feel the pull to rehearse. A conversation you are dreading, a message you are drafting, a version you are preparing. When you feel it, you might try just noticing it — not defeating it, only noticing.
That noticing is where straightness begins. Qoheleth searched a lifetime and came back with one finding. Jesus added the second half of it: nothing built in the dark is permanent. Between the two of them there is enough truth to change a week, and possibly a life.
Which passage of Scripture have you always wanted to understand properly, rather than merely read? Tell me in the comments, and it may well become a Sunday.
Our devices renew themselves while we sleep. We do not.
By John Britto Kurusumuthu
Sometime last night, while the house was dark and the phone lay charging on the table, it quietly improved itself. A vulnerability was sealed. A defect was corrected. A feature was added that no one had asked for but everyone would soon use. By morning the device was measurably better than the one set down the evening before, and it had asked nothing of its owner but permission and electricity.
The owner, meanwhile, woke up exactly the same.
This is the strange asymmetry of our age. We carry in our pockets an object that is designed to keep getting better, and we carry it in a body and a mind that are designed, if left alone, to keep getting more certain. Machines now improve by default. Human beings decay by default — not in intelligence, but in currency. The world moves; our settings stay where we last saved them.
What an update actually does
It is worth being precise, because the metaphor is only useful if we take it seriously. A software update is not a single thing. It does three distinct jobs.
It patches vulnerabilities — the flaws through which something hostile could enter. It deprecates code — the old routines that once worked, that no longer serve, that now quietly conflict with everything around them. And it extends capability — the genuinely new function that the earlier version simply could not perform.
Read those three against a human life and the parallel stops being clever and starts being uncomfortable.
The vulnerability we most need to patch is not technical. It is the ease with which we can now be persuaded of things that are untrue, flattering, or profitable to someone else. A mind that has not upgraded its filters in twenty years is not neutral; it is exposed. It is running a critical-thinking module written for a world in which information was scarce and expensive, in a world where it is abundant and free and engineered to move.
The part we never do
Patching and adding, most of us manage. We read. We attend the course. We collect the certificate. Addition is agreeable; it flatters us. A shelf of new books is evidence of a person taking themselves seriously.
Deprecation is the work almost nobody does.
To deprecate is to look at a conviction that has served faithfully for thirty years — about how young people work, about what a family should look like, about who is capable of what, about how a thing has always been done — and to conclude that it is no longer supported. Not that it was wicked. Not that we were fools to hold it. Simply that the environment it was written for no longer exists, and that continuing to run it now produces errors.
This is an unglamorous and slightly humiliating exercise, which is precisely why it does not happen automatically. There is no background process for humility. Nothing installs it at 3 a.m. It costs discomfort every single time, and the cost is paid in public, in front of people who remember what we used to say.
Lag is not a matter of age
It would be easy, and wrong, to read all this as a complaint about the old. Obsolescence has nothing to do with the year of manufacture. There are people of seventy running current firmware — curious, revisable, genuinely interested in being corrected — and people of twenty-five running a build frozen at the moment they last felt certain of themselves. Youth is not an update. It is only a recent installation date.
The real diagnostic is simpler. Ask yourself when you last changed your mind about something that mattered, in a direction that cost you something. If the answer arrives easily, the system is live. If you have to search for it, something has stopped receiving.
The symptoms of a frozen system are familiar enough. There is lag — the growing gap between the speed of the world and the speed of one’s response to it. There is incompatibility — the inability to work with people whose assumptions were written after one’s own. And there is rigidity, which we usually experience from the inside as principle, and which others experience from the outside as simply being unreachable.
Why the analogy finally breaks
Every metaphor has a point at which it fails, and this one fails in an instructive place.
A phone does not choose to update. It has no opinion about the version of itself it is asked to become. The improvement is done to it, by parties who have their own reasons, and it accepts the new configuration without complaint because it has no self to defend.
We are not in that position. Every human update is a small act of authorship. It requires a person to decide what is worth keeping, what is worth surrendering, and who they are prepared to become — and to do so knowing that no one will install it for them and no one will notice if they don’t.
That is the burden. It is also, quite exactly, the dignity of the thing.
The reversal
There is one last observation, and it is the one worth carrying away.
The applications on your phone are updated with great diligence and at enormous expense, and it is worth asking plainly whose interest that serves. Each refinement is measured, tested, and released with a purpose: to hold your attention a little longer, to make the leaving a little harder, to convert a few more minutes of your life into value on someone else’s ledger. Those updates are real improvements. They are simply not improvements to you.
Self-improvement is the only update in the entire system that runs in your own interest. It is the only one nobody pushes to you, the only one that installs nothing unless you consent to the discomfort, and the only one that gives your attention back rather than taking more of it.
Which raises the question that ought to end this, and which cannot be answered by anyone else on your behalf:
Your phone updated itself last night. When did you last update yourself — and what, precisely, are you still running that should have been retired years ago?
Pappad at both ends. Nobody corrected it, because it wasn’t an error. Pappad genuinely appears twice—first to be crumbled into the parippu and ghee, then later to be snapped over the payasam. A slipped thumb had accidentally revealed something true about the meal.
If you asked me to name one tradition from Kerala that I love without qualification, it would be this: the Onasadya, the Onam feast, not merely for its food but because it is a form rather than a menu.
Start with the word. Sadya comes from the Sanskrit sādya, meaning a banquet or feast. In Kerala, however, it has come to mean something richer—a meal shared together. The word says less about the food than about the people gathered around it. Everything else about the sadya follows naturally from that, including the feature that surprises first-time visitors most.
It is a single course.
There is no procession of starters and mains. Everything arrives together on a banana leaf and remains there until the meal ends. A traditional sadya may include more than twenty dishes; an elaborate one even more, while the famous Aranmula Vallasadya serves over sixty. Yet the number is never the point.
The architecture is.
The banana leaf is placed with its tapered end to the left. This is not a matter of preference but of tradition, understood instinctively by every Malayali at the table. The upper half of the leaf holds the small, sharp accompaniments, meant to be tasted in tiny portions. The lower half remains open for rice, which will be served and served again.
Then comes the quiet brilliance.
The order in which the food is served is not the order in which it is eaten.
The inji puli arrives almost immediately but waits until much later. The chips remain untouched through several servings of rice. You receive the entire meal at the beginning and are trusted to decide what belongs to now and what should wait. No one removes your temptations. No one controls your pace. A sadya is served all at once but enjoyed in deliberate sequence, and the discipline belongs entirely to you.
The meal itself follows a gentle progression. It begins with parippu and ghee, moves through sambar and the rich vegetable preparations, gradually lightens with rasam and moru, and finally ends with the sweetness of adapradhaman and the famous Ambalapuzha palpayasam—simple enough in its ingredients, yet a dessert whose enduring appeal has left generations with little reason to improve it.
This is what I truly love, beneath the pleasure of eating.
Everyone receives the same banana leaf, the same traditional spread, and the same generous offering of rice until they signal “enough.” There is no premium version at the head of the table. No alternative menu. Whatever a family may eat during the rest of the year, the Onasadya remains entirely vegetarian, allowing everyone to sit and eat together without distinction.
Onam celebrates Mahabali, the beloved king whose reign is remembered as a time when equality prevailed and no one was deceived. Most festivals preserve such ideals by telling the story.
The sadya does not merely tell it.
It lets you participate in it.
For about ninety minutes, seated side by side on the floor, eating with your right hand, equality is no longer an idea. It becomes an experience.
When the meal ends, you fold the banana leaf. Towards yourself, according to the most familiar tradition, to express satisfaction and the hope of being welcomed again. Ask what folding it the other way means, however, and you will probably receive three different answers and a friendly debate. I have come to enjoy that too. A tradition with settled grammar but living punctuation is a tradition that continues to breathe.
This year, Thiruvonam falls on Wednesday the 26th. Our apartment building will be unusually quiet because everyone will have gone home—to their own towns, their own families, the sadya they grew up with.
Then, four days later, everyone returns.
On Sunday the 30th, we gather again and share another sadya together, even though each of us has already celebrated it separately.
Which is exactly what a word meaning a shared feast asks of us.
And when the payasam has been served and the meal draws to its gentle close, someone will pass down the leaf the one thing that midnight notice instinctively knew deserved to be written twice.
The pappad.
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 22 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
If you could relive one day from your past, which day would it be and why?
Today’s prompt asked which day I would relive. I declined, and I have exactly one reason for it. Grant the day with knowledge and you haunt it. Grant it without, and nothing changes at all. There is no third version of the wish.
The Day I Would Not Relive
The prompt arrives this morning with a kindness in it:
If you could relive one day from your past, which day would it be, and why?
It is offered the way one offers a chair to an older man—courteously, assuming he will be glad to sit.
I find that I must decline.
Not because there is no such day. There is. I could name the date without consulting anything.
It is the premise I refuse.
I have one reason. Only one. But a single ground is sufficient if it holds.
It is this: if the gift were ever offered, it could come to me in only two forms.
Both fail.
And there is no third.
Consider the first.
The day is returned to me, but I arrive carrying everything I know now. I know how the day ended. I know what the years afterward would cost. I know which faces at that table would disappear from my life, and how.
What would I actually do with such a day?
I would not live in it.
I would sit inside those hours like an auditor in the corner of a meeting, a file open on his knee—present in the room, absent from the proceedings.
I would watch the clock from the first minute. I would grieve in advance for things that had not yet happened. I would look at a face and see its ending.
That is not reliving a day.
That is haunting one.
And knowing what I know, I would try to change it. I would say the thing I failed to say. Stay ten minutes longer. Put my hand on a shoulder I did not touch the first time.
Every correction might make the day better.
But every correction would destroy the object of the wish.
The moment I amended the day, it would no longer be the day I had asked to relive. It would be a corrected day—a day that never occurred.
So the first form contains a contradiction:
I want the day exactly as it was, and I want to fix it.
It cannot give me both.
Consider the second form.
The return is perfect. I am given the day—and my ignorance along with it. I walk into those hours knowing nothing of what follows, exactly as I did the first time.
This is probably what most people mean when they answer the prompt sincerely.
But it gains nothing.
I would say the same words. Fail to say the same words. Notice the same small things and miss the same large ones.
And I would emerge at the other end exactly where I am now, with no awareness that I had been anywhere twice.
It would not be a second experience of the day.
It would simply be the day happening again.
Which it already did.
One form makes me a ghost at my own table.
The other makes the gift indistinguishable from never having received it.
I have looked for a middle arrangement.
There is none.
Partial knowledge changes nothing. Wherever I am warned, I become the auditor with the file, watching and correcting. Wherever I am spared, I live the day as before.
So I will not name the day.
I know it.
I could describe the light in the room, what was said, and who said it. But some of the people in that day are no longer here to decide whether they wish to appear in a stranger’s blog post.
And perhaps there is another reason.
A thing described is a thing slightly diminished. Put into words, it becomes available to strangers and marginally less available to me.
I have written for a living.
I know what description costs.
What I will say is this:
I am not keeping that day.
I gave up trying to keep it a long while ago.
It is keeping me.
It is not behind me, waiting to be visited. It went into the making of the man who sat down this morning, read a stranger’s question, and found that he already had the answer.
That is not a day I need returned.
That is a day I never actually left.
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 21 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
The prompt asks what the last movie was that made me cry. I have been sitting with the question longer than it deserves, because the honest answer is that I do not know, and the reason I do not know has very little to do with movies.
Let me begin further back, with the tears themselves.
There are, I think, five kinds. There is the tear of grief, which is the simplest and the heaviest. There is the tear of beauty, which arrives unbidden at a piece of music or a line of verse and embarrasses us slightly. There is the tear of recognition, which comes when someone we have never met describes something we thought only we had felt. There is the tear of gratitude, which is rarer than we admit. And there is the tear of reunion, which is the only one that arrives with joy attached.
A film, at its best, can reach any of these. That is its craft. It takes two hours to build a corridor down which your feeling is walked, slowly, deliberately, toward a door that opens at exactly the right moment. It is an honourable art and I do not disparage it.
I simply cannot walk down the corridor any more.
I have not entered a cinema in twenty-five years. That much I could explain away as habit, or age, or the sheer difficulty of finding three free hours in a working life. But it has gone further than that. I cannot finish a film on television. I begin one on a streaming platform and leave it halfway, not from boredom exactly, but from something like refusal. The corridor is being built and I decline to enter it. Twenty minutes in, some part of me stands up and walks out of the room.
For a long time I thought this was impatience. A man of a certain age losing the capacity to sit still. I was wrong about that, and I want to say what I now believe instead, though I warn you that it does not end where you might expect.
The tear a film seeks is a cultivated tear. It requires you to be led. It requires you to lend a stranger your feeling for two hours and to trust that he will use it well. And a man cannot lend his feeling out when it is already fully committed elsewhere.
In recent months I have watched two close friends die of cancer. A third is living with it now, as I write this.
I will say almost nothing about them here, because they were not stories and I will not use them as stories. But two things I cannot leave out. The first of them wanted very much to live. He was not finished. He had plans, and appetites, and a long list of things he intended to get to, and the disease took him in the middle of the sentence. The second had lived, by any measure I know how to apply, a genuinely good life — a decent, generous, unremarkable-looking goodness of the kind that does not get written about. He died anyway. Goodness bought him nothing at the end. I have been turning that over for weeks and I have not got anywhere with it.
And the third is still here. Still in it. I visit, and I sit, and I say the small useless things one says, and I come home, and I am completely helpless.
That is the word I keep arriving at. Helpless. Not sorrowful, though there is sorrow. Helpless. I spent nearly four decades in the business of drafting remedies. Give me a wrong and I will give you a section, a proviso, a mechanism for relief. I have no section for this. There is nothing I can draft that will help my friend.
So run the taxonomy again and see where the tears have gone.
Grief: present, and not from any screen. Beauty: yes, still, but it comes now in seconds rather than hours, in a verse read before daybreak or a hymn heard sideways from another room. Recognition: yes, and it costs more than it used to. Gratitude: yes, sharply, and usually late. Reunion: I am waiting on that one. Every category is populated. Not one of them was filled by a film.
Now the question I promised not to answer.
Is this a gain or a loss? I have genuinely tried to decide and I cannot. There is a version of this where I say that a life grown too full of real weight has no room left for manufactured weight, and that this is maturity, and I should be glad. There is another version where I admit that something in me has closed, that the ability to be moved by invented sorrow is a kind of softness worth keeping, and that I have lost it and should mourn that too.
Both feel true when I say them aloud. Neither feels true enough to write down as a conclusion.
What I know is this. The corridor no longer works on me because I am already standing in a room where the door is open and there is nothing on the other side that I can fix. I do not know whether that has made me deeper or only harder.
I am not going to pretend to know. My friend is still ill. That is where the matter rests tonight.
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 20 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
If you could erase one event from history, what would it be?
Every developer knows there are two ways to deal with a commit they regret.
A commit is a recorded change in a project’s history—a decision or action that has been saved and can be traced.
Reset moves the branch pointer backwards, so the unwanted commit is no longer part of the branch’s current visible history. Revert leaves the original commit in the history but adds a new commit that reverses its changes.
The mistake remains in the record, but its effects are undone.
Reset erases. Revert redeems.
Today’s writing prompt asked: If you could erase one event from history, what would it be?
The question took me somewhere I did not expect—into the architecture of undo, and then into an empty tomb where the scars had not been removed either.
Ctrl+Z: The Undo Stack of History
If you could erase one event from history, what would it be?
Press Ctrl+Z on Windows or Command+Z on a Mac, and the most recent action disappears. But an
undo stack is not a time machine. It is a sequence of actions, and you can only undo them from the top.
History is much the same.
Suppose you choose a war. To erase it, you would also have to undo everything that came after it—the treaty, the borders, the institutions, the lives shaped by it, the books written because of it, and generations that would never have existed in quite the same way.
You cannot simply remove one event from history without disturbing everything built upon it.
The operation we imagine is not really available.
Not because it is forbidden.
Because history has no Ctrl+Z.
The Things We Cannot Undo
Some actions never enter an undo stack at all.
A sent email cannot be unsent from another person’s memory. A spoken word cannot be taken back
after it has wounded someone. A decision, once released into the world, may set events in motion that we can no longer control.
The events we most want to erase are often precisely those that cannot be undone.
The lorry has passed.
The word has been heard.
The plane has taken off.And history does not provide an undo button.
Revert, Not Reset
But Git offers another possibility.
git reset moves the branch pointer backwards, leaving the unwanted commit outside the branch’s current history. git revert does something more remarkable: it leaves the wrong commit in the history and adds another commit that reverses its effect. Anyone reading the history later can see both: the wrong—and the answer to the wrong. That distinction changes how I think about the past.
Reset erases. Revert redeems.
And once you see that distinction, Scripture begins to look different.
Joseph’s brothers really did throw him into the pit. Their evil is not erased from the story. Yet Joseph could say:
“You meant evil against me; but God meant it unto good.”
— Genesis 50:20
The first event remains.
But it does not have the final word.
Nothing is erased. Everything is answered.
The Scars in the Commit History
And then we come to the empty tomb.
The Resurrection was not a reset. Jesus did not return as though Good Friday had never happened.
He still carried the wounds. Thomas recognised Him by those wounds. Revelation presents the Lamb as one who had been slain.
The scars were not evidence that the miracle had failed.
They were evidence that redemption had happened.
God could have erased the wounds. Instead, He carried them into glory.
That may be the deepest answer to the question of whether history can be erased.
Perhaps the greater miracle is not erasure, but redemption.
What This Leaves Us Holding
I do not mean that everything that happens is secretly good. Some things are monstrous. Some wounds remain painful. Some losses can never be explained away.
I simply mean that the past does not have to be erased for the future to be redeemed.
Your history may contain a commit you would give almost anything to reset—the year, the letter, the decision, the sentence spoken in a kitchen.You know its hash.
You could find it in the dark.
It will not be reset.
But it can be reverted—answered, overruled, transformed, and perhaps even made into the place where you are recognised.
And here is the extraordinary thing about redemption:
The repair is visible precisely because the wound remains in the record.
Take away the wound, and you also take away the evidence that anything was healed.
So perhaps the Christian answer to the past is not:
“It never happened.”
It is:
“It happened—and grace wrote what came next.”
God does not press Ctrl+Z. He redeems.
Closing Question
What is the commit you would reset—and what would it mean to discover that it could be redeemed instead?
Scripture referred to: Genesis 50:20; Luke 22:42; John 20:27; Revelation 5:6.
John Britto Kurusumuthu | Rise & Inspire | riseandinspire.co.in
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 19 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
What’s a conspiracy theory you actually find believable?
Nobody Is Driving
The conspiracy I find believable is the one nobody wants to hear: there is no one at the wheel.
Today’s prompt asks which conspiracy theory I actually find believable. I have an answer, but it runs in the opposite direction from almost every conspiracy theory.
Every conspiracy theory makes one quiet assumption: somebody is in charge.
There is a hidden hand. Someone convened. Someone decided. Someone understood the whole picture and chose this. The world may be governed by monsters, but at least it is governed.
After spending the better part of four decades inside the machinery of government, I have found that assumption among the least believable parts of the proposition.
How a decision is actually made
Consider something ordinary, because the ordinary version is the one nobody writes about.
A file begins somewhere modest. A section officer prepares a careful and reasonable note based on what he has been given. It travels upward. At each desk, someone reads it under pressure, changes a phrase, questions a figure, adds a line, and passes it on.
Every change is defensible. None of them is necessarily wrong.
Yet by the time the file reaches the end of its journey, it may contain a proposal that not one of the officers who handled it would have written—and several might have opposed if they had seen the whole thing on the first day.
But nobody ever saw the whole thing.
It arrived in increments, each small enough to accept.
Then it is approved. The deadline is close. Too much effort has already been invested. Sending it back would mean losing another month.
And suddenly, a decision exists in the world, with real consequences for real people.
If you tried to trace it, you might find twelve reasonable people and no decision-maker.
There was no meeting in a darkened room. There was a file, a deadline, and eleven people assuming the twelfth had already thought it through.
I have watched this happen more times than I can count, from almost every position in the process.
It is not corruption. Corruption would at least imply intent.
This is more troubling: outcomes with no single origin, consequences with nobody deliberately behind them, policies that emerge from a system almost the way weather emerges.
Why we would rather have monsters
Perhaps that is why the idea is so uncomfortable.
A hidden hand, however malevolent, offers three things the truth may not.
It offers an explanation: the outcome was chosen, so it must make sense.
It offers a remedy: if someone did this, someone can be stopped.
And it offers an address: a name, a face, a person to hold responsible.
The alternative offers none of these.
If a system produced an outcome that nobody consciously chose, there may be nothing dramatic to expose, nobody obvious to remove, and no revelation that will suddenly put everything right.
There is only the long, unglamorous work of watching the system more carefully than we have been watching it.
A conspiracy is, in a strange way, a form of consolation.
It tells us that the world is at least being steered, even if by the wrong hands.
The alternative is far more unsettling:
the wheel is unattended.
Where this leaves responsibility
But there is a lazy conclusion I do not want anyone to draw.
If nobody is in charge, it does not mean nobody is responsible.
It means responsibility is distributed.
If one person authored a harmful outcome, that person carries the fault and everyone else can remain a spectator.
But if twelve people contributed to it without seeing the whole picture, responsibility is shared among all twelve. Add those who could have asked a question but did not, those who noticed the drift but said nothing because it was not their section, and those outside the system who never looked closely enough.
The circle widens.
It may even reach us.
That is why the unattended wheel frightens me more than any cabal.
A cabal can be exposed.
A drift can only be resisted by people who keep paying attention.
And attention is expensive. It is tedious. It rarely earns applause.
So, my answer
The conspiracy I find believable is not that a few people secretly run the world.
It is that far fewer people are running it than we imagine.
Much of what happens was chosen by no one in particular. The machinery keeps moving through momentum, deadlines, institutional habits, and the reasonable assumption that somebody further up has thought it through.
Somebody further up has often not.
I have been somebody further up.
There is no dramatic revelation waiting at the end of that thought. No secret file to leak. No single name to publish.
There is only a simpler and more demanding conclusion:
The world may not be managed on our behalf.
And where we expected to find a hidden hand, we may instead find an unattended wheel.
That space is not empty of responsibility.
It is waiting for someone to take it.
Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 18 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
Local AI: How to Run a Powerful Language Model on Your Own Computer, Offline and Free
A plain guide for bloggers, writers, lawyers, teachers and professionals who want more work done, at lower cost, with nothing leaving their machine
Most people use AI the same way. They open a browser, type into ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini, and wait for the answer to come back from a server somewhere far away. It works well. It also costs a monthly fee, needs a live internet connection, and sends everything you type to a company you do not control.
There is a second way, and it has become simple enough for anyone to use.
You can download an AI model onto your own computer and run it there. Once the model is downloaded, you can run it without internet or a recurring subscription and, with a properly configured local setup, keep your prompts and documents on your computer. It sits on your hard drive like any other program, and it answers your questions using your own processor.
This article explains what that means in plain terms, how to set it up in about twenty minutes, and, most importantly, what it actually does for people who write, teach, practise law, run a business, or publish online.
What “local AI” actually means
An AI model is a very large file. When you use ChatGPT, that file lives on a server in a data centre. When you run AI locally, you download a copy of a similar file to your own computer and run it yourself.
These downloadable models are called open-weight models. They are free. Companies such as Meta, Alibaba, Mistral, Google and Microsoft release them publicly. Anyone can use them.
They are not quite as clever as the very best cloud systems. But they are far better than most people expect, and for the routine work that fills your day, the difference is often invisible.
What you need
The most important practical constraint is memory. AI models are large, and for responsive performance most or all of the model should fit into the memory available to it. The more of it that fits, the faster it runs.
Memory is not the only factor, however. System RAM or unified memory, the capability of your graphics processor, the context length you set, the quantisation you choose and the architecture of the model itself all bear on how well a given model performs on a given machine. Two models of identical size can behave quite differently.
The figures below are a rough guide only. Actual requirements vary with the model, the quantisation and the context length you configure.
– Small models, around 3 to 8 billion parameters. Need about 8GB to 16GB. These handle summarising, editing, translating and everyday drafting well.
– Medium models, around 12 to 32 billion parameters. Need about 24GB to 32GB. Noticeably better at reasoning, tone and multilingual work. This is the tier most serious writers will want.
– Large models, 70 billion and above. Need 48GB to 64GB or more. Very capable, but slower and demanding.
Apple Silicon Macs are particularly good at this because the processor and graphics share one large pool of memory. On Windows and Linux, available GPU VRAM, system RAM and the inference software all affect what you can run and how fast it runs. A model held entirely in graphics memory runs fastest; one that spills into system memory will still run, more slowly.
If your machine has 16GB, you can start today. If it has 32GB, you will be genuinely pleased with the results.
One more term you will see: quantisation. This is compression, labelled Q4, Q5, Q8 and so on. Lower numbers mean smaller files and faster running, with a small loss of quality. As a rule of thumb, a substantially larger model at Q4 can outperform a smaller model at Q8, but the result depends on the models and task. When in doubt, choose the middle option and compare for yourself.
Will it slow down the rest of my computer?
This is the first question most people ask, and it deserves a direct answer.
On a Mac, unified memory is one shared pool. macOS itself, Safari, Word, Mail and the AI model all draw from the same 16GB or 32GB. When you load a model, it reserves roughly its file size in memory and holds it there until you unload it. Close the model, or quit the application, and that memory returns instantly. Nothing is permanent, and nothing is lost.
The working rule is to leave headroom. macOS and your normal applications need about 6GB to 8GB. Budget for that first, then spend what remains.
– 16GB machine. Keep the model under about 8GB. A 7B or 8B model at Q4 is typically 4.5GB to 5GB. Comfortable.
– 24GB machine. Up to about 15GB. A 14B model at Q4 fits well.
– 32GB machine. Up to about 22GB. A 24B to 32B model at Q4 works.
– 64GB machine. A 70B model at Q4 becomes feasible, at around 40GB.
Two refinements are worth knowing. The context window consumes memory on top of the model file, so a very large context can add several gigabytes. And macOS limits how much of the shared pool the graphics cores may claim, which is a further reason not to fill it to the brim.
If you do overshoot, nothing breaks. macOS compresses memory and then begins swapping to the SSD. But swapping is enormously slower than memory, so the model crawls, the fans spin up, and the whole machine feels unresponsive. You will know at once.
Open Activity Monitor and watch the Memory Pressure graph at the foot of the window. Green means you are fine. Sustained yellow means the model is too large for what else you are running. Red means unload it.
In practice, load the model when you need it and unload it when you are done. LM Studio provides an eject control beside the model name, and a setting to unload automatically after a period of inactivity. If you are running a heavy document, a large browser session and the model at the same time, drop one size. A smaller model that answers instantly beats a larger one that stalls the machine.
Start one tier below what your memory theoretically permits. Confirm everything runs smoothly alongside your usual applications, and only then try the next size up.
The two programs to install
LM Studio is the main one. It is a normal desktop application. You browse available models, it tells you which ones your computer can handle, you click download, and then you chat in a window that looks like any other AI chat. No coding, no commands.
AnythingLLM is the second, and for professionals it is often the more valuable of the two. It lets you drop folders of PDFs, reports, statutes, research papers or old drafts into an offline workspace, and then ask questions across the whole collection. It can retrieve information from the collection and provide source references; the precision of those citations depends on the documents and configuration. With a properly configured fully local setup, your documents can remain on your computer.
Setting up, step by step
Before you start: local AI is not automatically private or secure simply because it runs on your computer. Use a trusted application, keep your operating system and software updated, encrypt your device, and verify that the model and any connected services are genuinely running locally before processing confidential material.
1. Go to lmstudio.ai and download the version for your operating system.
2. Open it and use the search or discover panel to find a model. Look for Qwen, Llama, Mistral, Gemma or Phi. These are the main families. Do not worry about version numbers; take the current release.
3. Check the memory figure shown beside each option. If it exceeds your available memory, choose a smaller one.
4. Download, then select the model from the dropdown at the top of the chat window and wait for it to load.
5. Turn off your Wi-Fi and ask it a question. When the answer appears, you will understand the point immediately.
What this does for bloggers
This is where local AI earns its place, because blogging involves a great deal of repetitive work that is perfectly suited to a model running quietly in the background at no cost.
Unlimited drafting without watching a meter
Cloud subscriptions have message limits and token caps. A local model has none. You can generate fifteen headline variations, then thirty, then start over, without any calculation about whether it is worth it. That freedom changes how you work. Most people quietly ration their own experiments because each attempt feels as though it costs something. Remove the cost and you begin to experiment properly.
Repurposing one post into ten formats
Paste a finished article and ask for a LinkedIn version, a newsletter introduction, three social captions, a meta description, and a set of pull quotes. This is mechanical work that a small local model does perfectly well, and it is exactly the work that eats an afternoon.
Bulk SEO housekeeping
Titles, slugs, alt text for images, meta descriptions, keyword variations, FAQ blocks. None of this requires frontier intelligence. All of it takes time you would rather spend writing.
Editing passes on your own terms
Ask for a pass for repetition, then a pass for passive voice, then a pass for sentence length. Run each one separately. On a metered service you would compress these into a single request. Locally, you can afford to be thorough.
Your archive becomes searchable
Put every post you have written into AnythingLLM. You can then ask what you said about a topic three years ago, find where you have repeated yourself, and identify gaps in your coverage. For anyone with hundreds of posts, this is the single most useful application on this list.
Unpublished work stays unpublished
A draft you feed to a cloud service has been transmitted to a third party. A draft you feed to a local model has not. For book manuscripts, embargoed pieces, or anything under a publishing agreement, this matters.
What it does for other professionals
– Lawyers and legal officers. Client papers, draft pleadings, opinions and case files can be summarised, indexed and questioned without any of it crossing a network. Local processing can substantially reduce the risk of transmitting confidential material to an external AI service, but professional confidentiality, data-protection and cybersecurity requirements still apply. Load a set of judgments or reports into a local workspace and you have a searchable research assistant that, properly configured, sends nothing outward.
– Teachers and academics. Generate question banks, rubrics, lesson outlines and reading summaries in bulk. Student work, which you generally should not be uploading anywhere, can be processed locally for feedback drafts that you then review and refine.
– Doctors, counsellors and social workers.Anything containing patient or client detail is difficult to put through a cloud service. A local model can assist with letters, summaries and note tidying while keeping the material on your own equipment. Local processing can substantially reduce the risk of transmitting confidential material to an external AI service, but professional confidentiality, data-protection and cybersecurity requirements still apply.
– Accountants, consultants and analysts. Client financials, internal memoranda and proposals can be drafted and summarised offline. Confidentiality clauses in engagement letters usually make this the only sensible route.
– Researchers and authors. Large reference libraries become interrogable. A hundred PDFs in a workspace can be questioned as one body of knowledge, with citations, and without a subscription that ends when your grant does.
– Small business owners. Product descriptions, customer replies, policy documents and staff notices, produced in whatever volume you need, at no marginal cost.
– Translators and multilingual writers. Modern open models handle many languages competently. Because there is no per-use charge, you can translate an entire archive rather than only the pieces that seem worth paying for.
The productivity point, stated plainly
The gain is not that local AI is smarter. It is not.
The gain is that three frictions disappear at once.
– Cost friction disappears. You stop rationing your own experimentation.
– Upload friction disappears. You stop deciding whether a document is sensitive enough to withhold. Everything can go in.
– Availability friction disappears. It works on a flight, during an outage, in a village with no signal, and at two in the morning when a service is down.
Taken together, these change AI from something you consult occasionally into something running beside you all day. That shift, rather than any benchmark score, is where the productivity actually comes from.
What it will not do
– It does not know current events. Its knowledge stops at its training date and there is no live search.
– It can still be wrong, confidently. Local hosting protects your privacy. It does nothing for accuracy. Verify everything that matters.
– It is weaker on the hardest tasks. Complex reasoning, difficult code and delicate stylistic judgement still favour the leading cloud models.
– Local does not mean secure by itself. Encrypt your drive. A stolen laptop undoes everything otherwise.
– Check the licence if you are using it commercially. Most major models permit it. A few restrict it.
The sensible arrangement
Keep both.
Use the local model for confidential material, bulk repetitive work, document archives, and anything you would rather not upload.
Use the cloud model for live research, current facts, and the hardest thinking.
For many professionals, a practical hybrid workflow is to use local AI for private, repetitive and offline work, while using cloud AI for current information, live research and the hardest tasks.
Download it once, and you can use it without a recurring subscription for as long as the model, software and hardware remain suitable. That is the heart of the proposition.
For a visual walkthrough of installation and setup, the tutorial below shows the download, configuration and first offline session.
My honest answer is that I have never dealt with it. I have only ever germinated in it.
A seed goes into the ground knowing nothing at all, and the first thing it does is send a root downward, away from the light, deeper into the dark it is trying to escape. Whatever will hold the plant upright when the storm comes is built entirely in the dark, before there is anything to hold up.
Today’s reflection is about acting when the answers have not arrived, and about the seed that stays whole, and keeps, and remains perfectly useless.
Read it on Rise & Inspire.
The reflection’s core message is:
Uncertainty is not a temporary obstacle to living; it is the very condition in which life happens. Therefore, we should not wait for complete knowledge or certainty before acting. Like a seed, we are given enough provision for the next stage, and growth often begins in darkness before we understand what is happening.
DAILY WRITING PROMPT | 17 AUGUST 2026
What the Seed Does Not Know
On dealing with uncertainty
Somewhere this morning a farmer put a seed into the ground. The seed did not consent. It was not consulted. It did not ask for a soil report, or a rainfall forecast, or the name of the man whose hand released it. It went into the dark, and within a few days it began, without instruction and without assurance of any kind, to grow.
I have been sitting with that seed, because I have been asked how I deal with uncertainty, and the honest answer is that I have never dealt with it. I have only ever germinated in it.
I. What the Seed Does Not Know
Consider the extent of its ignorance. The seed does not know the chemistry of the soil around it. It does not know whether there is stone six inches below. It does not know whether the rain will arrive in three weeks or three months, or whether the field will be shaded out by a neighbour it will never see. It does not know whether the land is owned or leased or about to be sold. It does not know whether the hand that sowed it was generous or merely careless. It does not know whether it was intended for bread or for birds.
The list is not partial. It is total. There is no fact material to the seed’s survival that the seed possesses. If knowledge were the precondition of action, nothing would ever have grown on this earth.
I find that clarifying, and I did not expect to. We speak of uncertainty as an unusual condition, a fog that occasionally settles over a landscape otherwise clearly seen. It is not the fog. It is the landscape. The seed’s ignorance is not a defect in its situation. It is its situation, and it has been the situation of every living thing since the first one.
II. What the Seed Has
What it is given instead of knowledge is provision. Packed inside the casing is a small store of starch and oil, the cotyledon, and it is enough for a few days. It is not enough to reach harvest. In poor soil it is not even enough to reach the surface. It is enough to begin, and it is designed to be enough for nothing else.
This is the part I resisted longest. I wanted a warehouse and I was handed a lunchbox. Four decades in public service taught me to prepare, and preparation is a sound discipline; but somewhere along the way I began to mistake preparation for provision, and they are not the same instinct. Preparation asks what might happen. Provision asks only whether there is enough for the next stretch of ground. The first question has an infinite answer and is therefore useless. The second usually answers yes.
Scripture is unsentimental about this. The manna in the wilderness could not be stored; what was hoarded bred worms by morning. Bread for the day, and for the day only. I used to read that as a lesson in trust. I have come to read it as a lesson in physics. Provision sufficient for a lifetime would have to be carried, and nothing built to carry a lifetime can move.
III. What the Seed Does
It does three things, and it does them in a fixed order.
It splits. The casing that protected it, the very shell that kept it viable in the granary and the sack and the pocket, must break, and the breaking is not optional. Nothing germinates with its shell intact. Every certainty I have surrendered felt, at the time it went, like the loss of protection. It was exactly that. Protection is precisely what it had been, and it had finished its work.
It roots downward before it reaches upward. This is the detail I return to most often. The radicle emerges first, and it travels in what looks like the wrong direction: away from the light, away from the air, deeper into the very dark the seed is trying to escape. The seed’s opening act is an investment in the direction it cannot see. Only afterwards does the shoot rise. Whatever will hold the plant upright when the storm comes is built entirely in the dark, before there is anything at all to hold up.
And it grows without understanding how. Mark records something strange about the kingdom of God: a man scatters seed on the ground, and sleeps, and rises night and day, and the seed springs and grows, he knows not how. Notice who is ignorant in that sentence. Not the seed. The farmer. Even the man who sowed it cannot account for the mechanism. He does the one thing available to him, and the growth is not his contribution.
IV. What the Seed Cannot Escape
Here is the part that offers no comfort, and I would rather say it than leave it out.
Split the ripe fruit and you find seeds. The plant does not graduate out of uncertainty. It manufactures more of it. The end of the process is the beginning of the process, laid down in quantity. Whatever you are waiting for at present, the appointment, the diagnosis, the verdict, the child’s safe arrival, the letter that has not come, will not deliver you into a settled country. It will deliver you into the next field.
I do not say this gloomily. I say it because the alternative belief is far heavier. If uncertainty were a stage to be passed through, then every year that failed to produce certainty would be a wasted year, and most of my years would be waste. If uncertainty is simply the medium in which living things live, then nothing is wasted, and the governing question quietly changes. It stops being when will I know. It becomes what am I able to do while not knowing. That second question has answers. It has had answers every day of my life.
The Seed That Does Not Split
A seed that refuses to break remains a seed. This is not a failure in any dramatic sense. It is a preservation. It will keep. It will still be a seed in ten years, perfectly intact, perfectly viable, perfectly useless. There is a kind of life that is only ever storage.
He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.
Ecclesiastes 11:4
I take that less as a rebuke of caution than as a plain description of arithmetic. There is no morning on which the wind is finally right. Waiting for conditions is not a strategy that eventually succeeds. It is a strategy that never resolves, and it wears the appearance of wisdom for as long as it takes to run out of mornings.
So, how do I deal with uncertainty? I do not. I sow in the morning, and in the evening I do not withhold my hand, because I do not know which shall prosper. That last clause is not the disclaimer attached to the instruction.
“If uncertainty is the seed’s condition, then the next question is obvious: What enables it to grow despite what it does not know?”
SCHOLARLY COMPANION
The Grammar of Not Knowing
Botany, Scripture, philosophy and law behind “What the Seed Does Not Know”
This companion sets out the material on which the reflection rests. It is written for the reader who wants the substructure rather than the surface, and it may be read entirely independently of the reflection itself.
Part I — The Botany Is Not a Metaphor
1. Dormancy as a strategy, not a defect
A viable seed in dormancy is not inert by accident. Dormancy is an active, regulated state maintained by abscisic acid and broken by gibberellins, and its evolutionary function is to prevent germination at the wrong moment. The seed is not waiting because it lacks initiative. It is waiting because premature germination is fatal, and the mechanism that holds it back is as sophisticated as the mechanism that releases it.
This complicates the popular reading in which delay is always cowardice. Botanically, there is a real distinction between dormancy, which is internally governed and purposeful, and quiescence, which is simply the absence of water. The reflection’s closing section concerns the seed that never breaks at all; it is worth noting that in nature this is a minority outcome, not the norm, and that seed banks such as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault exist precisely to institutionalise indefinite non-germination for a public purpose.
2. Imbibition and the irreversible threshold
Germination begins with imbibition, the intake of water, which swells the seed and ruptures the testa. What matters for the argument is that imbibition past a certain point is irreversible. A seed that has taken up water and begun mobilising reserves cannot return to dormancy; it germinates or it dies. There is no third path. The reflection’s claim that “the breaking is not optional” is literally accurate, not rhetorically convenient.
3. Radicle before plumule
In the overwhelming majority of angiosperms the radicle, the embryonic root, emerges before the plumule, the embryonic shoot. The sequence is not arbitrary. Water acquisition and anchorage must precede photosynthesis, because the seedling cannot support aerial growth it cannot supply or hold upright. The downward movement is therefore not a detour before the real work. It is the enabling condition of the real work.
The distinction between epigeal germination, in which the cotyledons are carried above the soil, and hypogeal germination, in which they remain below, adds a further point: in the hypogeal pattern the reserve organ never sees light at all. Its entire contribution is made underground and is never visible in the mature plant.
4. The finiteness of the reserve
Cotyledon or endosperm reserves are measured in days, not seasons. The seedling reaches photosynthetic independence or it exhausts its store. This is the biological basis for the reflection’s distinction between preparation and provision: the seed is not underequipped by oversight. Carrying a larger reserve would impose dispersal and predation costs that outweigh the benefit. The lunchbox is an optimisation, not a shortfall.
5. Longevity, for the record
Seed viability across long intervals is well documented. A Judean date palm was raised from seed recovered at Masada and radiocarbon-dated to roughly the first century. Silene stenophylla was regenerated from tissue preserved in Siberian permafrost estimated at some thirty thousand years. These cases matter because they establish that intact preservation and eventual fruitfulness are not mutually exclusive across any timescale a human being will experience. The seed that has not yet split is not thereby disqualified.
Part II — The Scriptural Field
6. Mark 4:26–29 — the seed growing secretly
This parable is unique to Mark and is the hinge of the reflection’s third movement. The decisive phrase is that the farmer sleeps and rises, night and day, and the seed sprouts and lengthens, and he does not know how. Verse 28 supplies the term automate, from which the English “automatic” derives: the earth bears fruit of itself. The parable does not describe divine action arriving to compensate for human ignorance. It describes a process already running, in which human ignorance is simply not an obstacle.
The pastoral consequence is considerable. The farmer’s sleep is not negligence. It is the correct response to a process that does not require his supervision and would not be improved by his anxiety.
7. Ecclesiastes 11:1–6 — the arithmetic of sowing
Qoheleth’s counsel in this passage is the most direct scriptural treatment of decision-making under irreducible uncertainty. The structure is worth noticing. Verse 2 counsels distribution across seven or eight portions, which is diversification. Verse 4 observes that the one who watches the wind will not sow, which is the paralysis case. Verse 5 grounds the whole in ignorance of the way of the spirit and of the formation of bones in the womb. Verse 6 issues the operative instruction: sow in the morning, do not withhold the hand in the evening, for you do not know which will prosper.
The logical move in verse 6 is the one most often missed. Ignorance is not offered as a caveat softening the instruction. It is offered as the premise from which the instruction follows. Because you cannot know which will succeed, you must act on more than one front, and you must act now.
8. John 12:24 and 1 Corinthians 15:35–38
John’s grain of wheat supplies the theology of the split casing: unless it falls into the earth and dies, it abides alone. Paul’s treatment in 1 Corinthians is the more technically interesting for present purposes. He argues that what is sown is not the body that shall be, and that God gives it a body as it has pleased him. The point is discontinuity of appearance alongside continuity of identity. The seed cannot be read off the plant, nor the plant off the seed. Applied to uncertainty, this is a caution against inferring the outcome from the present form of things, in either direction.
9. Isaiah 55:10–11
The rain does not return void but accomplishes what it was sent to do. The passage is frequently cited for the efficacy of the word; less often noticed is that the mechanism described is agricultural and time-lagged. Efficacy is asserted across an interval in which nothing is visible. The claim is not that results are immediate. It is that the absence of visible result is not evidence of failure.
Part III — The Philosophical and Economic Frame
10. Knight’s distinction: risk and uncertainty
Frank Knight, in Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (1921), drew the line that governs all serious modern discussion. Risk is measurable: the distribution of outcomes is known or knowable, and can be insured against. Uncertainty proper is unmeasurable: the distribution itself is unknown, and no premium can be calculated. Knight’s further claim is the striking one. Profit, in his account, is the reward not for bearing risk, which is priced, but for bearing true uncertainty, which is not.
Translated into the reflection’s terms: the seed does not face a probability distribution. It faces Knightian uncertainty, and its germination is not a calculation.
11. Keynes and the honest sentence
Keynes developed the same distinction in Chapter 12 of the General Theory (1936) and, more bluntly, in his 1937 Quarterly Journal of Economics reply, where, of the prospect of a European war or the price of copper twenty years hence, he wrote that about these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever, and that we simply do not know. His account of animal spirits follows directly: since calculation cannot ground action, action must be grounded elsewhere, in a spontaneous urge to activity rather than inaction.
12. Keats and negative capability
In a letter to his brothers George and Thomas dated 21 December 1817, Keats described the quality he found in Shakespeare: being capable of remaining in uncertainties, mysteries and doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason. The phrase is often sentimentalised. Read precisely, it identifies the reaching as the problem, and specifically its irritability. The failure mode is not ignorance. It is the compulsive intolerance of ignorance.
13. The apophatic tradition
The Cloud of Unknowing, anonymous, fourteenth century, and behind it Pseudo-Dionysius, hold that God is approached through unknowing rather than through comprehension, and that the cloud between the seeker and God is not a temporary obstacle to be cleared but the condition of the encounter itself. This is the strongest theological form of the reflection’s central claim that uncertainty is the medium rather than the interference.
14. Bounded rationality and satisficing
Herbert Simon’s work from the 1950s onward supplies the practical bridge. Given limited information and limited computational capacity, optimisation is unattainable; agents satisfice, selecting the first option that meets a threshold of adequacy. This is not a counsel of mediocrity but a description of how competent decisions are actually made in the world. It corresponds closely to the reflection’s distinction between preparation, which seeks to optimise against all futures, and provision, which asks only for sufficiency for the next stage.
Part IV — The Legal Analogue
Law is the discipline that has thought hardest about acting under irreducible uncertainty, because it has no option to postpone. A court cannot decline to decide on the ground that the facts are unknowable, and the machinery it has developed in response is instructive.
Standards of proof. The law does not require certainty and never has. It requires proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters and a preponderance of probabilities in civil ones. Both are explicit concessions that decision must proceed on incomplete information, and both allocate the cost of error deliberately rather than pretending it away.
Burden of proof. The rule that he who asserts must prove is, functionally, a tie-breaking device for irresolvable uncertainty. It does not discover the truth. It determines who loses when the truth cannot be discovered.
Presumptions. Statutory and common law presumptions permit a court to proceed as though a fact were established, subject to rebuttal. They are formal instruments for converting unknowns into workable premises.
Interim relief. The tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury allow decisive action precisely without determining the merits. Provisional certainty is treated as sufficient for present purposes, and revision is built into the design.
Limitation and finality. Statutes of limitation and the doctrine of res judicata close matters that could always, in principle, be reopened by fresh material. The legal system accepts a known risk of error as the price of allowing life to proceed.
Read together, these devices amount to a single institutional admission: certainty is not available, decision is not optional, and the mature response is to build correction into the system rather than delay until correction is unnecessary.
Working Bibliography
Bewley, J.D., Bradford, K.J., Hilhorst, H.W.M. and Nonogaki, H., Seeds: Physiology of Development, Germination and Dormancy, 3rd edn (Springer, 2013).
Finch-Savage, W.E. and Leubner-Metzger, G., “Seed dormancy and the control of germination”, New Phytologist, vol. 171 (2006).
Knight, F.H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Houghton Mifflin, 1921).
Keynes, J.M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (Macmillan, 1936), ch. 12; and “The General Theory of Employment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 51 (1937).
Keats, J., Letter to George and Thomas Keats, 21 December 1817, in The Letters of John Keats, ed. H.E. Rollins (Cambridge University Press, 1958).
The Cloud of Unknowing, anonymous, 14th century, ed. P. Hodgson (Early English Text Society, 1944).
Simon, H.A., “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 69 (1955).
Taleb, N.N., Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder (Random House, 2012).
Sallon, S. et al., “Germination, Genetics, and Growth of an Ancient Date Seed”, Science, vol. 320 (2008).
Yashina, S. et al., “Regeneration of whole fertile plants from 30,000-year-old fruit tissue”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109 (2012).
“Provision alone does not produce growth. The seed must also respond to what it has been given.”
CONNECTING BRIDGE
From Substructure to Surface
How the scholarship became the reflection, and what was left out
The bridge exists to make the seams visible. A reflection that shows its research becomes an essay; a reflection that hides it becomes sentiment. This document records the choices made between the two.
The Governing Decision
The seed image is the most heavily used metaphor in devotional writing, and that was the principal risk in choosing it. The usual treatment runs: the seed is small, the harvest is large, therefore have faith. That reading is warm, true in a limited way, and entirely exhausted.
The reflection avoids it by inverting the axis of interest. It is not concerned with the seed’s size but with its ignorance, and ignorance is a subject on which the botany happens to be unusually precise. Once the question became what the seed does not know, the familiar material stopped being familiar, because nobody writes about the epistemic position of a seed. The metaphor was rescued by asking it a question it is not usually asked.
Movement by Movement
Section I rests on the totality of the deficit
The catalogue of what the seed does not know is deliberately long and deliberately unrelieved, because the argument turns on the deficit being total rather than partial. Section 2 of the companion supplies the technical basis: there is no informational input the seed possesses that bears on its survival prospects. This licenses the reflection’s central reversal, that uncertainty is the landscape rather than the fog. Knight and Keynes stand behind the sentence without being named in it.
Section II rests on the finiteness of the reserve
The preparation-and-provision distinction is the reflection’s only piece of original conceptual work, and it needed the botany of paragraph 4 to be more than wordplay. The load-bearing fact is that the cotyledon reserve is small by optimisation and not by oversight. Without that, “I wanted a warehouse and was handed a lunchbox” is a complaint. With it, the lunchbox is the correct engineering answer, and the complaint dissolves.
The manna passage was chosen over the more obvious lilies of the field because manna carries the additional detail of hoarded provision spoiling. That detail converts a devotional point into a mechanical one, which is the register the reflection wanted at that moment.
Section III rests on the sequence
Three actions, in the order the botany actually gives them. The split comes first because imbibition is irreversible, as paragraph 2 sets out. The downward root comes second because the radicle genuinely precedes the plumule, as paragraph 3 establishes; had the sequence been the other way, the paragraph on building in the dark would have been a pleasing falsehood, and would have had to go.
The turn on Mark 4:27 is the section’s pivot and the whole reason the parable was selected over the mustard seed. The Greek automate, discussed at paragraph 6 of the companion, establishes that the ignorance in the passage belongs to the farmer and not to the process. This permits the reflection to observe that the person who does not understand the mechanism is nevertheless the person acting, which is the entire consolation being offered.
Section IV rests on recursion
This is the section most readers will not expect, and it is the reason the piece is not merely encouraging. Paul’s discontinuity argument at 1 Corinthians 15:37 underwrites the refusal to promise a settled outcome. The fruit contains seeds; the process regenerates its own starting conditions.
The paragraph beginning “I do not say this gloomily” carries the ethical weight of the whole reflection. The argument is that the recursive reading is the kinder one, because the alternative silently condemns every unresolved year as wasted. That inference is the piece’s real gift to a reader in difficulty, and it is offered as reasoning rather than as reassurance.
What Was Deliberately Excluded
Frank Knight, John Maynard Keynes, Herbert Simon and John Keats are all present as structure and absent as names. Naming any of them would have shifted the register from reflection to essay within a sentence.
The entire legal analogue in Part IV of the companion was cut from the reflection. It is the material closest to my own working life and it was the hardest omission, but interim relief and burdens of proof would have narrowed a global readership to a professional one.
The Judean date palm and the Siberian Silene were held back from the reflection, though either would have been a striking paragraph. They belong to the seed that has not yet split, and introducing them at the close would have softened that section into consolation when it needed to remain honest.
No resolution was written. There is no final paragraph in which uncertainty is defeated, because the argument does not permit one, and supplying one would have contradicted section IV three paragraphs after making it.
A Note on the Closing
The reflection ends by quoting the second half of Ecclesiastes 11:6 and then commenting on its grammar: that the ignorance clause is the reason for the instruction and not a qualification of it. That single observation is the thesis of the entire piece compressed into one sentence about syntax, and it was placed last because it is the only line a reader is likely to carry away intact.
The habit of reading a proposition closely enough to notice which clause is doing the work is not a devotional habit. It is a drafting habit, and it is the one instrument I have carried across from a life of statutory work into a life of writing about faith. It is, I think, the most useful thing I brought with me.
In response to the WordPress Daily Prompt: 17 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
What’s a moment when you realized you were officially an adult?
The Ledger of Candidates
When did I actually become an adult?
John Britto Kurusumuthu
In the law there is a useful habit. When several claimants come forward for the same title, we do not argue about them all at once and in a heap. We enter each claim in its turn, examine it on its own merits, and either allow it or strike it off with the reasons recorded. It is a slow method. Its virtue is that nothing is lost. Even a rejected claim leaves behind a line of writing that tells you why it failed, and there are days when the reasons for failure teach more than the eventual success.
I have applied that method to a question the calendar cannot answer.
When did I become an adult?
There is a legal answer, and it is worthless. The law fixes a day. On that day a person who could not do a hundred things becomes a person who may do them, and nothing whatever has happened to him overnight. I have drafted such provisions myself. They are necessary, and they are fictions, and everyone who drafts them knows it.
So I opened a ledger instead, and entered the candidates one by one.
Entry the First: The Purple Finger
The first vote. The queue in the morning, the register turned towards me, the officer taking my hand almost absently and drawing the line of indelible ink across the nail. I walked home holding that hand a little apart from my body so that the mark would be seen.
The claim was a strong one. The State had stopped and asked my opinion about who should govern it. Surely that is adulthood.
Struck off. The ink faded within the week, and so did the feeling. What I felt that morning was not the gravity of a man carrying a burden; it was the delight of a boy who had been given a badge. I had been enrolled, not entrusted. Every person born on my day was enrolled alongside me, the wise and the foolish without distinction, and no quality of mine had been tested to earn it. A capacity conferred by the calendar is a capacity nobody has deserved.
Entry the Second: The First Salary
Money of my own, counted twice, and then a third time. The claim here is that a man who earns is a man grown.
Struck off, and the reason is embarrassing. I remember exactly what I did with that money, and it was the conduct of a thoroughly delighted child. Earning proves that somebody has found your labour useful. It does not prove that you have become answerable for anything. And the pleasure of it lay entirely in what it could buy for me. Adulthood, as I came to understand very much later, has less to do with what your money buys for you and rather more to do with what it quietly buys for other people, without announcement and without being mentioned again.
Entry the Third: The Key
The first room that was mine, at the first posting, and a key of which no other person in the world held a copy. I locked the door behind me and sat on the edge of the cot in a silence I had never owned before.
Struck off. Solitude is not responsibility. Nothing in the world depended on whether that door was locked or open. Had I lost the key, exactly one person would have been inconvenienced, and he was me. Independence and adulthood are different things, though the young confuse them constantly, and I have met men who managed to confuse them for forty years.
Entry the Fourth: The Day I Was First Called Sir
It came from the doorway, unremarkable, in the middle of an ordinary afternoon, and it rearranged something in my chest.
Struck off, and firmly. That word was addressed to the chair and not to the man sitting in it. Offices arrive with a vocabulary already attached, and the vocabulary stays behind when you leave. I have since watched that same courtesy travel from one occupant to the next without pausing for breath at the handover. To mistake the deference owed to a post for the weight of a person is the commonest error in public life, and in the long run the most expensive one.
Entry the Fifth: The First Draft That Left My Hand
This is the nearest of the five, and I part with it reluctantly. A provision I had written myself, in words I had chosen, going out into the world to do work among strangers who would never know my name. I can still recall the particular quiet of that feeling.
Struck off, and the reason took me years to see. Above my initials there were other initials. Someone senior would read it. Someone senior would correct it. I was permitted to be wrong. A man who can be corrected before the consequences arrive is still, in the only sense that finally matters, being looked after. The net was there beneath me. I could not see it, and that is precisely why I mistook the height for danger.
It has the form of adulthood. It does not have the substance.
Entry the Sixth: The Question
And then the entry that stands.
There was no ceremony attached to it, which I have come to think is the whole point.
My father asked me what should be done.
Not as a test. Not to draw out an opinion so that he might improve upon it afterwards, which is how fathers have taught their sons since the beginning of the world. He asked because he did not know, and because he had decided, somewhere out of my sight, that I might.
I waited for the correction that had always followed. It did not come. I looked behind me for the senior initials and found only the wall.
That was it. That was the entire event. No purple ink, no salary counted three times, no key, no courteous word from a doorway, no sentence of mine going out to do its work. There was only a silence into which I was now expected to speak, and nobody standing behind me to speak instead.
Adulthood is not conferred and it is not achieved. It is handed over, quietly, at the moment the person who used to carry it turns and discovers that his own hands are full.
The Closing of the Ledger
Reading back over the entries, I notice something I did not intend. The first five were all about acquisition: rights, money, privacy, standing, authorship. Each of them added something to me. The sixth added nothing at all. The sixth was a transfer, something set down by one person because it had grown heavy, and taken up by another because there was no one else in the room.
We imagine we are climbing towards adulthood. A good deal of the time we are simply being handed things by people who are getting tired.
And so the ledger closes without a closing balance, because there is not one. Adulthood does not arrive in a single instalment. It comes in the particular moments when somebody needs an answer and there is nobody else to give it, and each such moment adds a little to the account. If you are waiting for the ceremony, I can tell you there is none. If you are waiting to feel ready, that feeling was never on the syllabus.
There is an old wisdom that we are never given a thing before the day we need it. I have found that to be reliably true of strength. On the morning my father asked, I did not have the answer he required. By that evening I had given him one. Where it came from I could not tell you with certainty even now, but I have my suspicions, and I have not since assumed that I was working alone.
So I put the question to you, and I would genuinely like to know the answer. What is in your ledger? Which candidates have you entered over the years, and which one of them, when you examined it honestly, is the entry that stands?
In response to the WordPress Daily Prompt: 16 August 2026.
Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Daily Prompts
Here is a question worth sitting with. How many hours last month did you spend renaming files, resizing images, or building the same folder structure for the fourth time? None of that is difficult work. It is simply repetitive, and repetitive work quietly eats the hours you meant to spend writing.
This week on Rise and Inspire we look at what it actually means to become a power user, and why it has far less to do with coding than most people assume. Six safe Terminal commands. Six gradual stages. One habit of mind that changes everything. Do read it, and tell me which repetitive task you would automate first.
RISE & INSPIRE | TECHINSIGHTS
Could You Become a Power User Without Becoming a Programmer?
Why working wisely matters more than knowing how to code
John Britto Kurusumuthu
Technology draws a quiet line through most of our working lives.
On one side stand ordinary users. They open applications, click through menus, drag files from one place to another, adjust a setting now and then, and use the machine very much as it arrived from the factory.
On the other side stand the power users. They seem to make the computer obey them, rather than the other way about.
For writers, teachers, and other thoughtful people who have never regarded themselves as technical, that divide can feel discouraging. It need not be.
You do not have to become a programmer in order to become a more capable user of your own computer.
A power user is simply someone who has learnt to use advanced features, shortcuts, automation, and system controls to work faster and more precisely. The distinguishing mark is not technical erudition. It is efficiency, thoughtful customisation, and a steady unwillingness to repeat unnecessary labour.
What Actually Makes Someone a Power User
Consider two writers preparing ten posts.
The first creates every document by hand, types every title, builds every folder, renames every image, and repeats the same sequence of actions ten times over.
The second pauses and asks whether some part of that sequence might be handed to the machine.
That second habit of mind is where power use begins.
Four characteristics are generally observed in such users:
— Command-line and automation: using the Terminal, scripts, or automation tools for tasks that are repetitive or intricate.
— Keyboard-centred navigation: relying on shortcuts and quick launchers rather than the mouse.
— Awareness of what lies beneath: knowing where files actually live, and having some sense of permissions, processes, and system performance.
— Workflow customisation: shaping the computer to the way one works, instead of accepting every default as though it were law.
Observe what is absent from that list. Not one of these qualities requires a professional programmer.
The real question is a far humbler one: can you persuade the machine to take on more of the repetitive work, so that you may attend to the work only you can do?
What Is the Terminal, and Why Should a Writer Care?
For many people the word Terminal carries an air of menace. It should not.
The Terminal is nothing more than a way of speaking to your computer by typing instructions instead of clicking buttons.
On a Mac, press Command and Space to open Spotlight, type the word Terminal, and press Return. A prompt appears, waiting. You type an instruction, press Return, and the computer carries it out.
It is very like handing a short written note to a diligent assistant.
A few examples:
pwd
asks the computer to show which folder you are presently standing in.
ls
lists the files and folders there.
cd Desktop
moves you into the Desktop folder.
cd ..
moves you back one level.
clear
clears the screen.
exit
ends the session.
For a beginner, the commands themselves matter far less than the idea behind them: instead of performing every action by hand, you may sometimes simply tell the computer precisely what you want done.
A Word of Caution
The Terminal is not a separate engine of power. It is a direct line to the tools your operating system already possesses, and it is that directness which grants you greater control. Greater control also means that mistakes carry greater consequence.
Commands are case-sensitive. The instruction cd Desktop and the instruction cd desktop are not necessarily read as the same thing.
There is a graver warning still. Be exceedingly careful with any command involving rm or sudo. A beginner should not use such commands at all until he understands entirely what they do, because deletion through the Terminal can bypass the ordinary safety of the Trash.
So the lesson is not: begin typing mysterious commands and see what happens.
The lesson is: understand what a command does before you execute it.
That single discipline is the foundation of responsible power use, and it is not so different from the discipline of reading a document twice before signing it.
Why Automation Matters to Anyone Who Writes Regularly
Here the subject becomes genuinely interesting.
Writing involves a surprising quantity of work that is not writing at all. The creative heart of the matter is the composition; but gathered around it are the administrative tasks:
— creating files;
— naming documents;
— organising folders;
— preparing templates;
— formatting content;
— processing images;
— maintaining consistent metadata;
— preparing successive drafts;
— publishing and scheduling posts.
Scripts and automation can absorb a great deal of that administrative burden, while the creative and personal aspects of the writing remain firmly in human hands.
That distinction deserves emphasis. Automation need not replace the writer. It simply returns to the writer the hours in which he may be a writer.
Imagine preparing a month of posts
Suppose you publish a daily reflection.
Creating thirty individual files by hand is not intellectually demanding. It is merely repetitive, which is a different sort of burden and in some ways a heavier one.
A single Terminal instruction can generate a series of properly named and dated files for the whole month.
The significance lies not in the command but in the change of mind. Instead of thinking, I must create these thirty files, the power user thinks, how do I have the computer create these thirty files for me?
From one post to many
The possibilities widen when automation is joined to other tools.
A script may read topics or dates from a spreadsheet and generate multiple draft files, each carrying its title, date, metadata, and a consistent outline. A script may also be connected to an artificial intelligence model through its API, so that a series of prompts is processed and each resulting draft or outline is saved separately.
For a writer this means moving from one sequence to another.
From: idea, then manual preparation, then repetitive formatting.
To: ideas, then automated preparation, then human review, then publication.
Judgment, accuracy, voice, originality, and meaning remain the responsibility of the person. The machine handles only the mechanics.
The WordPress question
The idea extends further. WordPress offers a command-line tool, WP-CLI, by which posts may be created, imported, scheduled, or published without repeatedly opening the web dashboard.
This does not mean that every writer should hasten to install it. For most, the ordinary editor is entirely sufficient.
But knowing that such possibilities exist alters the way one regards one’s own workflow. The power user asks whether there is a better way of doing this, rather than accepting that this is how it has always been done.
Images, and the quiet tyranny of repetition
Images impose their own layer of repetitive labour. A single article may require several pictures to be resized, compressed, converted, and prepared for the web.
Command-line image tools such as ImageMagick can process an entire folder at once, rather than demanding that each file be handled separately.
Again, the point is not that every writer needs ImageMagick. The point is that repetitive work is almost always a candidate for automation.
Six Stages, Not One Leap
There is no need to pass from clicking icons to writing elaborate scripts overnight. A sensible progression might run as follows.
— Stage one: learn keyboard shortcuts, and reduce your dependence upon the mouse.
— Stage two: organise your files, and understand where your documents actually reside.
— Stage three: learn a few safe Terminal commands, beginning with pwd, ls, cd, clear, and exit.
— Stage four: identify the tasks you perform again and again.
— Stage five: automate one small task, perhaps the creation of folders or the preparation of filenames.
— Stage six: only then explore scripts, APIs, WP-CLI, and the wider apparatus of automation.
Approached in this way, the whole subject loses its power to intimidate.
The Real Power Is Not the Terminal
This may be the most important lesson of all.
A power user is not necessarily the person who knows the greatest number of commands. A power user is the person who recognises where work may be done more intelligently.
A writer who uses ten keyboard shortcuts well is already a power user in practice. A writer who builds one simple automated routine for a repetitive task is further along still.
And a writer who knows when not to automate something may show the soundest judgment of all.
Technology ought to serve creativity, not bury it beneath complexity.
The Writer’s Advantage
Those who write already possess something automation cannot easily supply: a human point of view.
A computer can create files. A script can arrange information. An artificial intelligence can generate text. An image tool can process photographs. An automation can repeat a workflow without complaint or fatigue.
But it is the writer who decides:
— What is worth saying?
— Why does it matter?
— Is it true?
— Is it helpful?
— Does it sound like a real person?
— Does it carry the weight of lived experience?
— Does it deserve to be published at all?
Those questions remain wholly human, and they are the questions upon which everything finally rests.
The wisest approach, therefore, is not humanity set against technology. It is human creativity joined to technological efficiency.
A Word on the Stewardship of Hours
There is a deeper reason to care about any of this, and it has little to do with computers.
Every hour spent renaming a file is an hour not spent thinking, reading, praying, teaching, or listening to another person. Time is the one resource that is issued to us without renewal, and we are answerable for how it is spent.
Learning to work more efficiently is therefore not a matter of technical vanity. It is a small act of stewardship. The talent entrusted to us is not to be buried under digital housekeeping.
Used rightly, these tools do not make us less human. They give us back the hours in which we may be more fully so.
From Clicking to Thinking
If you have never once opened a Terminal window, do not imagine that you have been left behind. You may begin somewhere far simpler than that.
The next time you find yourself performing the same task for the fourth time, pause and ask a single question.
Must I really do this by hand every time?
That is already a power-user question.
Perhaps the answer will be yes. Perhaps you will uncover a keyboard shortcut. Perhaps a built-in automation exists that you had never noticed. Perhaps an artificial intelligence tool can assist. Perhaps, in time, a small script will handle the whole thing.
What matters is that you have begun to look for the wiser way.
An ordinary workflow says: tell me where to click.
A power-user mindset says: tell the computer what I want, and let it help me reach it.
For anyone who writes, that shift can mean less time given to digital housekeeping and more time given to writing, reflecting, creating, and meeting readers where they are.
And perhaps that is the true meaning of becoming a power user: not mastering the machine, but making the machine work better for you.
RISE & INSPIRE | TECHINSIGHTS
Inspiration, faith, education, technology, and personal development.
