update from sparkleup

writing/3/unknown-things/iyov/index.md

@@ -22,10 +22,10 @@ Timeboxed third attempt for academic in footnotes:
 
 * [o] [Intro](reverse/intro)
 * [.] [Background](reverse/background) --- Andrew and Jill and the fundamental unhappiness of identity
-* [ ] [Younes](reverse/younes) --- Gender play and hidden selves
-* [ ] Dysphoria --- The internal side
-* [ ] Clash with Jill --- Stopped talking, told off for Younes, told to fuck off
-* [ ] The choice of Job
+* [.] [Younes](reverse/younes) --- Gender play and hidden selves
+* [ ] [Dysphoria](reverse/dysphoria) --- The internal side
+* [ ] [Clash with Jill](reverse/clash) --- Stopped talking, told off for Younes, told to fuck off
+* [ ] [The choice of Job](reverse/choice)
 
 Pals quotes:
 

writing/3/unknown-things/iyov/reverse/choice.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+There is a point of least faith. This is the minimum amount of faith required to simply get by in the world. The word 'faith', here, is specifically left lowercase: faith in God, perhaps, but faith that the world will get better? Faith that the next breath will come, that you and the world in which you exist are compossible? However terrifying this large a concept may be, as True Name would have it:
+
+> But what does it mean to believe in something like [the irreversibility of time]? Or the sanctity of life or love or art? Or God, for that matter? 'Belief' as a word is a stand-in for a concept so broad as to be to be intimidating or impossible. One may say as Blake did, "For everything that lives is holy", but encompassing that within one's mind is truly terrifying. \parencite[122]{mitzvot}
+
+This point implies for some an ideal of least faith: that one should strive to live their life taking the least number of things on faith as possible, that to rely too much on faith becomes a fault. For others, it is a principle of least faith: it is an intrinsic property that we tend towards the least amount of faith required to live, as is evidenced by the ever-increasing understanding of the world around ourselves.
+
+And, perhaps because of that principle, this point of least faith is always shifting, trending usually downwards --- though some discoveries, if they are to be believed, may make that line tick upwards. Every day, we drift towards some point at which all things may be known.
+
+

writing/3/unknown-things/iyov/reverse/younes.md

@@ -40,17 +40,17 @@ An aside: ((furry as a queer space))[^younes-translation]
 
     Both of these interpolations seem to be taking the raw feelings of the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes and trying to soften them, shaving off all those coarse edges. In Job we have a man striving to be heard by God Himself, and in Ecclesiastes, we have a teacher who is bordering on nihilism,[^younes-choice] yet both of these editors are trying to fit these texts into the context of a tradition that, while it does include (and even encourage) the capacity to call God to account and to feel that certain sense of nihilism, would still appreciate a somewhat more positive view within its scripture.
     
-[^younes-choice]: And though even this discussion of interpolations may feel like an interpolation itself, here is where it ceases being such: One possible outcome of Job's travails is that *he* becomes Qohelet. Can one imagine going through the experiences that Job went through and not coming away with at least a little bit of that nihilism? Your family dies. Your livelihood is stripped away. YOu sit in the bit of ashes with lesions all over your body, and then God comes down in his whirlwind and fixes it all for you. You look back on all of your piety, you look back on all of your wealth, and suddenly yes, it is all a chasing after the wind.
+[^younes-choice]: And though even this discussion of interpolations may feel like an interpolation itself, here is where it ceases being such: One possible outcome of Job's travails is that *he* becomes Qohelet. Can one imagine going through the experiences that Job went through and not coming away with at least a little bit of that nihilism? Your family dies. Your livelihood is stripped away. You sit in the bit of ashes with lesions all over your body, and then God comes down in his whirlwind and fixes it all for you. You look back on all of your piety, you look back on all of your wealth, and suddenly yes, it is all a chasing after the wind.
 
 [^younes-interpolation2]: The second of these interpolations is the Elihu's[^younes-elihuintro] speech --- and, indeed, the entire character of Elihu, who is never mentioned outside his own chapters --- in chapters 32--37. Alter holds a particularly dim view of Elihu, stating, "At this point, in the original text, the Lord would have spoken out from the whirlwind, but a lapse in judgment by an ancient editor postponed that brilliant consummation for six chapters in which the tedious Elihu is allowed to hold forth." \parencite[460]{alter} Few seem convinced that the character and his speeches are from the original text. The NOAB, notably bearish on the whole Bible, agrees that this may indeed be the case, though it does so with a sigh and a tone of resignation, adding, "In any case, the Elihu speeches are part of the book we now have", \parencite[767]{noab} with Greenstein echoing that sigh: "Even if, as most scholars think today, the Elihu chapters were added belatedly, they form part of the biblical book." \parencite[22]{greenstein}
 
+[^younes-elihuintro]: Job and his friends have three rounds of arguments, which shall be covered soon, and then, beginning in chapter 32, Elihu is introduced out of nowhere.[^younes-shuffling] "So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes."[^younes-eyes] (Job 32:1, NRSV)
+
 [^younes-shuffling]: The editors of the NOAB offer additional insight, that Elihu's speeches may have simply been shuffled out of order (a problem elsewhere in the text) and that his speeches may have originally come after the final of Job's three friends' speeches after chapter 27. This both lends credence to the Hymn to Wisdom in chapter 28 being the conclusion of his own speech and ensures that God replies to Job immediately after *his* final speech rather than after Elihu's, which would better fit the structure of the book. There is no reason it cannot be both, of course; the two additions could have been both interpolations and inserted out of order through some mix-up or whim in an early editor's haste.
 
     Indeed, Greenstein suggests that this goes even deeper: that much of the text from chapter 24 through chapter 28 may be jumbled due to this process of interpolation. This would include the Elihu interpretation around the Hymn to Wisdom."I would explain this phenomenon by observing that toward the end of chapter 24 is a later insertion and that a roll of papyrus pages would have had to have been taken apart in order to insert the Elihu discourses, which include, I am convinced, chapter 28." \parencite[28]{greenstein} In the connection of the Hymn to Wisdom to Elihu, he is of one mind with the NOAB; indeed, in his reordered translation of the Book of Job, the Hymn is placed at the end of Elihu's speeches. He, however, disagrees with the potential interpolation of Elihu before Job's final speech, saying, "The motive for inserting Elihu into this point in the dialogues, just preceding the deity's speeches (chapters 38--41), is apparent. The divine discourses dwell on God's power and majesty, not on his justice or concern for humanity---which are the elements Job has been seeking."
     
-    All this to say that Elihu presents a departure from the rest of the book.
-    
-[^younes-elihuintro]: Job and his friends have three rounds of arguments, which shall be covered soon, and then, beginning in chapter 32, Elihu is introduced out of nowhere. "So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes."[^younes-eyes] (Job 32:1, NRSV)
+    All this to say that Elihu presents a departure from the rest of the book.    
 
 [^younes-eyes]: It is interesting to note the differences in tradition, here. Alter has "because he was right in his own eyes" but offers no note as to why, which is a little disappointing. JPS ("for he considered himself right" (Job 32:1, JPS)) and Greenstein ("since in his own eyes he was right and just" (Job 32:1, Greenstein)) agree. All three of these are Jewish sources.