An exercise in remembering how young i am.

19. she/her

[samathy-000]

i think this blog will be a collection of things I encounter that are beautiful and simple

[samathy-000]

[samathy-000]

i forgot what the context of this was, but I think this was under a photo of Judas, and the idea is that if not even God could love someone enough to make them reciprocate, how could I have done the same with my father?

[samathy-000]

[samathy-000]

old photo from my adventures in making horrible filter coffee

[samathy-000]

hahahahaha

[samathy-000]

idk ill miss it here

[samathy-000]

food + plants + items that signify a place is lived in will always make a compelling photograph for me.

[samathy-000]

there is something so beautiful about my desk right now that im struggling to capture on camera

[samathy-000]

file in: things we should still be doing

[samathy-000]

i am not responsible enough for this.

[samathy-000]

[samathy-000]

it rained again!

[samathy-000]

[samathy-000]

gem from the scan of Judas Iscariot by Leonid Andreyev on google books.

Annotation reads (corrected for grammar): "This translator is a fastidious prude. [illegible] a scholarly idiot."

[samathy-000]

@kaisbeloved i wrote half of this and then completely forgot about it. apologies, but here it is now.

From what I understand, in the church, Judas has traditionally been depicted as an outsider among the apostles– either as possessed by the devil, or a pariah in that he's a moral failure among saints.

Lowe (our translator) says that Leonid Andreyev might depict Judas as "the ugliest man" from Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche.

here's the excerpt from sparknotes:

Given the art I have seen about this piece of writing, I find it extremely unlikely that Andreyev wrote a sympathetic perspective on Judas Iscariot for the sole purpose of undermining it. Lowe thinks that Andreyev humanized Judas in order to remind the audience that that pity is shameful and immoral.

I want to be clear here that I have neither read Nietzsche or the rest of Judas Iscariot, and my ideas are half baked and not fully thought out, but my impression is this: Lowe is trying to understand Judas in the religious-moral context of his own ideology, and Andreyev's depiction is just is not fitting. For that reason, he cannot understand or appreciate the work as it is.

He's an idiot and a prude, and he's disguising his innate inability to reconcile with the text under a padding of appropriated ideas from well-respected names in academia.

[samathy-000]

Albert Bertelsen. if you look at the center there is a little figure standing all by itself. thats me.

[samathy-000]

one of these days i will not post here so much and then you will know that im where im supposed to be

[samathy-000]

oki we will just listen to some music now. and have chocolate

[samathy-000]

i am so charmed by the baby pendant by j hannah. so charmed.