update from sparkleup

writing/3/terrifying/intro.tex

@@ -33,4 +33,18 @@ and does not destroy us. Every angel is terrible.
 \parencite[11]{duino}
 \end{verse}
 
-\emph{Ein jeder Engel ist schrecklich}, he writes, and I cannot think of a prayer more powerful than one spoken from the limen of terror and beauty we call awe.}
+\emph{Ein jeder Engel ist schrecklich}, he writes, and I cannot think of a prayer more powerful than one spoken from the limen of terror and beauty we call awe.}. And \emph{thanks}? There is too little bound up in that word for us to hang our hats on. I've marked none of the Lord's Prayer as \emph{thanks}, despite the very nature of its praise.
+
+The second, however, is that there are categories that is misses by virtue of the way it thinks about prayer. It comes at it so literally! How could it possibly hope to encompass the headiness of ritual? The comfort of mantras? The familiarity of well-worn words that linger with us through liturgy? It is a goal-oriented, Christian (indeed, largely Protestant and Evangelical) view of prayer.
+
+And where is the silence of contemplation? Where that ecstasy --- that literal \emph{ekstasis} of standing beside oneself, the one of which the mystics sing --- of simply being? Of loving?
+
+\begin{quote}
+Dear Raspberry,
+
+It's not that I never noticed before how many red things there are in the world. It's that they were never any more relevant to me than green or white or gold. Now it's as if the whole world sings to me in petals, feathers, pebbles, blood. Not that it didn't before---Garden loves music with a depth impossible to sound---but now its song's for me alone
+
+\parencite[119--120]{timewar}
+\end{quote}
+
+There is prayer also in the purity of love.