Blog Method

I am going to try to reproduce the journals by remembering the "macro-rhetoric." The journals contained long stretches of rhetoric around shallower arguments atheists and religious people use to prove their points. I worked from a pretense of adopting many of these points as my own, then turning the rhetoric into object lessons for further questions and insights. These larger points formed into overblown reveals, like in a mystery novel, only about some thesis about belief.

Fleshing out these reveals usually put the more disturbing/offensive comments into perspective as object lessons. This macro rhetoric itself fulfilled larger points, until it formed a hierarchy of twisted dichotomies and questions about life and truth.

The largest, most prevalent, and repetitive reveals fit into a class of being "antithetical to the soul" or a negative image of what I feel I am really like as a person - and an effort to disorient and confuse the reader - to gain their distrust - and encourage independent thought.

The rhetoric would take a trend, and then bring it into its utmost essence - usually to the point of turning the reader off from it. The audience both got the idea of what the essence of a sentiment was, but also was taken past it, onto other ideas.

The rhetoric is immensely discursive. It ebbs and flows between sophistry, guile, charm, raw evil, humor, lies, and even some good philosophy.