The Absurdist Purpleism Origin Story: Exsanguinating Irritation as Enlightenment

Happy New Year!

Welcome to 2026 — the year we politely ask the universe to get its act together, or at least to trip more gracefully when it doesn’t.

If the year behaves, wonderful.
If it doesn’t, well… chaos does tend to make the best material. Writers have to eat too.

So here’s raising a glass (or pointing it accusingly) at the year ahead:

May your days be long, your laughs be loud, and may only the interesting relatives figure out where you moved.
The rest can enjoy the mystery. It builds character. Theirs, not yours.

In any case — a very Happy New Year from Purpleism.
Around here, we don’t chase the absurd; it comes knocking on its own. Usually uninvited, occasionally tracking mud.

And as long as the universe keeps tossing nonsense our way, we’ll keep answering with a grin and a raised eyebrow.

Here’s to the wonderfully ridiculous year ahead.

Now...

I’ve spent my entire life wanting to eliminate irritations to the human experience. 

TV commercials is one of those issues. Not so much that they exist, but in how they abuse us.

Reduce.
Manage.
Eliminate?

About Purpleism

A faithful farce for a ridiculous world.

Those little intrusions that chopped up movies, drowned out mood, and slapped a logo bug in the lower corner of the screen like an uninvited houseguest who refuses to leave. That was the original spark — the primal irritant — that gave birth to Purpleism, the absurdist religion my son and I created long ago as a joke, a philosophy, and a protest movement against everything that unnecessarily irritates human existence.

And for a while, it felt like we were winning.

Streaming arrived.
Commercial-free shows.
No bugs.
No screaming ads.
Just content.

Bliss.

But of course, as with all victories in modern life, corporations eventually decided we were having too much happiness. So the streaming platforms did what corporations do: they re-engineered the old irritations, packaged them as “features,” and sold them back to us.

Ads returned. Bugs returned. Mandatory previews returned. Even the pause screen became a billboard.

It’s like they reverse-engineered Purpleism just so they could violate us more efficiently.

Purpleism: A Religion Built on the Irritation of Being Human

People sometimes assume Purpleism is political. Because it speaks out, against the abuse. Not politics at large, but as example, the Trump administration, Donald Trump, his MaGA nonsense and abuse.

But it really never was. That just happened because of the abuses of the Republican Party these past decades and then their embracing crime and autocracy in Donald Trump.

When my son and I came up with this in 2006 (Urban Dictionary), it was about the absurdities of life — the little grains of sand that get wedged under the eyelid of daily existence. Commercials that scream at you. The microwave that beeps eight times instead of once. The spoon that falls into the bowl every single morning.

If it unnecessarily irritates the human experience, it falls under Purpleism’s purview.

So naturally, when you have an administration as absurd as Trump’s — one so committed to chaos, grievance, incompetence, and the rebranding of nonsense as national policy — well, yes, Purpleism must acknowledge it. It’s not politics. It’s irritation at scale. A governmental-level bug in the corner of the national screen.

An absurd administration qualifies as a Purpleistic violation until it is rectified. Once he and it are gone, back to absurdism at large!

But politics is only a subset. Purpleism is bigger.

It includes:

• The autoplay trailer you didn’t ask for.

• “Are you still watching?”

• Apps that update their interface every two weeks for no reason.

• People who clip their nails in public.

• Microwave beeps.

• Corporations that remove features you paid for and sell them back to you under a new name.

• Ads that talk louder than God.

It’s a worldview — humorous, lightly philosophical, occasionally exasperated — that recognizes the fundamental truth of modern life:

We live in an absurd time, and the absurdity deserves a name.

Purpleism Today

Purpleism.org exists because, frankly, reality keeps providing material. Technology creates conveniences that instantly become irritants. Politics produces leaders who behave like malfunctioning pop-up ads. 

Culture elevates nonsense to spectacle.

Yet Purpleism isn’t cynical.

It’s observational.
It’s amused.
It finds the ridiculous in both the good and the bad.

If life insists on being absurd, we may as well acknowledge it, name it, and laugh at it — even when the laugh is a little exhausted.

So yes, I lived my whole life trying to eliminate TV commercials…
And now the commercials are back, wearing new clothes, embedded in systems designed to be ad-free.

But that’s exactly why Purpleism exists.

Because the universe refuses to stop being ridiculous.
Because absurdity is eternal.
Because every time we solve an irritation, someone monetizes its return.

And in that chaos — that deeply human, deeply annoying chaos — Purpleism thrives.

Visit: Purpleism.org or Facebook, or Instagram.

As our contact form says: 

Location: Earth (so far)

Hours: Always

Call us? Nope.

Where irritation meets enlightenment, and humor reminds us...we’re all sharing the same absurd little planet.

So be nice to one another, Absurdities notwithstanding. They can sit.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Author Signing - Port Orchard, Washington, Olympic Peninsula - Halloween - October 31, 2025

Happy Halloween!

Have a fun, safe and sane holiday!

Today, I have an author event in Port Orchard, Washington. This is the next town over from me here in Bremerton. I prepared something to say…but as it turned out, it's going to be just an author signing. Still, I wasn't sure at first, so I prepared something to say just in case I was asked to...

Deity, Dogma, and Misperception in Death of Heaven

2024 New York City Big Book Award Winner for Horror

Cover art by Marvin Hayes

When I wrote *Death of Heaven* in 2012, my intention — other than simply to entertain — was to explore how we as human beings misunderstand reality. This is something that goes back to my university degree in psychology, concentrating in phenomenology.

How, when we encounter something beyond our understanding, we invent stories about it. We build beliefs, and from those beliefs we construct entire systems — religions, moral codes, even ideas of good and evil — all to make sense of what we’ve seen or felt, even when we don’t truly understand it.

To very poorly paraphrase what someone once said:

“Given enough time, humans will turn almost anything into a religion.”

Thus, Longevity + Repetition = Institutionalization, or Religion.

In 1769 Voltaire said:

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

Hanif Abdurraqib (said more recently):

“With enough repetition, anything can become a religion.”

Terry Pratchett, in Small Gods more or less said:

“If enough people believe, you can be god of anything,” i.e., belief over time/in numbers begets religion.

Eric Hoffer, American moral and social philosopher best known for his book The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements published in 1951, is often cited when discussing how long-lived movements harden into institutions:

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Finally, the great Doug Adams of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy fame:

“I am fascinated by religion. (That’s a completely different thing from believing in it!) … What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it?”

He also said:

“Religion doesn’t seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever … really what it means is ‘Here is an idea or notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not.’ Why not? Because you’re not!”

For millennia, we humans believed the heavens revolved around us. That misperception wasn’t just an error — it became the organizing myth of civilization. From it grew:

-astronomy and mathematics (as early cultures tried to predict divine “movements” of the stars),

-architecture and art (temples and cathedrals aligned with celestial bodies),

-philosophy and theology (Aristotle, Ptolemy, Aquinas), and

-a moral worldview placing humanity at the center of creation.

Leaving that belief was painful. We murdered people over questioning it.

Every time humanity sheds an old illusion, it feels like dying a little. We fought to keep the Earth at the center of the universe; we silenced people for saying otherwise. But the truth didn’t care. It just waited. And that’s the same struggle my characters face in Death of Heaven — when reality refuses to match belief, but rather than belief fighting back...reality wins. And it’s horrifying.

This book wasn’t about denying religion, it wasn’t an attempt to destroy religion, rather it simply tries to point out just how often we misperceive reality.

That’s what *Death of Heaven* is really about. It’s horror, yes — to be sure, it’s adult horror, but not just in the sense of monsters or the supernatural.

It’s about the horror of realizing how fragile our understanding of existence might be... while reality is attacking us and allowing us no time to assimilate the new paradigm of reality.

The story follows people who experience things far beyond what they or anyone, can comprehend, and rather than accept the unknown, they interpret it through the only framework they have through their lived experiences: belief.

They assign meaning. They have to. And so they create gods out of confusion and terror, as humans have always done.

To me, that’s what’s fascinating — and frightening. We think of dogma as something ancient or religious, but it’s actually a very human reflex. We do it constantly, even today: we fill in the blanks when reality doesn’t make sense.

Both to our benefit and detriment.

The universe, in its enormity, doesn’t explain itself — and that silence is intolerable to us. We are pattern recognizers and so we assign the most obvious pattern to what we do not understand.

So we name it. We worship it. We fear it. We give it purpose, even when that purpose may never have existed.

In *Death of Heaven*, that instinct to explain — to create meaning — becomes both the source of our strength and the root of our tragedy. Because if our gods and our certainties are born from misunderstanding, then what happens when the truth finally arrives and refuses to fit those stories? What happens when heaven dies — not in the sky, but inside us, in the collapse of our own convictions?

So while I wrote it as a piece of speculative horror, it’s really an exploration of perception. Of how much of our reality is shaped by the stories we tell ourselves to survive. And maybe, just maybe, what we call divinity — or evil — isn’t divine or evil at all, but simply the way the universe looks when we see it through human eyes.

But what might happen in the sequel to the book? Once the entire world cannot deny that reality is not what we believed? Many will continue on. Some will not be able to and perhaps mass suicides will ensue. But many will not be able to deny what they had just lived through and will have to reinvent their perceived universe.

That’s the world I wanted to explore — not to deny belief, but to question how belief begins.

How much of what we hold sacred comes from something real, and how much from our own inability to accept what’s truly unknown? For me, that’s where both the horror and the wonder live — in that fragile space between what we think we know and what reality might actually be.

So, we can talk about that. You don’t need to have read the book — I’m more interested in people’s thoughts.

What do *you* think heaven is — or perhaps more appropriately...what happens when we realize it isn’t what we thought, and never was?

So there it is…Have a great and safe Halloween!

One more comment...

Happy Halloween, Creatures of the Night! 🩸

The veil’s thin, the moon’s high, and somewhere a chainsaw just revved for its final time.

Tonight isn’t about candy...It’s about carnage, creativity, and the macabre stories that keep our hearts pounding long after the lights go out.

Not just the terror of anticipation, or the horror of the moment—
but the lingering echo of tales gone dark and disturbing.

The kind that crawl back into your mind when the night’s gone quiet.

The kind that makes you check the lock… twice. 🔪

Whether you’re covered in fake blood or hiding behind your screen watching your favorite final fight back, remember: horror isn’t just a genre but a lifestyle. When you hear that click in the distant dark while reading, while watching...it's not real, remember, it's not real... just keep reading, just keep watching.

Stay twisted, my friends, stay safe...but if you hear that knock after midnight…

Well... maybe just don’t answer. 👀

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Reality, Actuality, and the Noumenal: The Words We Use for the World We Can’t Quite Grasp

For years, I’ve drawn a line between reality and actuality. In my own usage, actuality was meant to capture the whole of what happens — real or misperceived, fact or hallucination. If someone experienced it, it was actual. Meanwhile, reality was meant to describe what is really going on, the part of existence that isn’t fooled by human error or perception.

But recently, diving into Kant again, I realized something odd: I’ve been using these words almost opposite to how they were understood in his time — and even opposite to how he philosophically framed them.

---

Kant’s Categories — and Mine

Kant distinguished between:

• The phenomenal world — what we perceive, shaped by the structure of our minds (space, time, causality).

• The noumenal world — what truly is, beyond perception: the thing-in-itself (Ding an sich).

He used:

• Wirklichkeit (“actuality”) to refer to what exists within our structured experience — the phenomenal.

• Realität (“reality”) as a more specific term tied to sensation and degrees of presence.

By contrast, I had been treating actuality as something deeper than reality — as a way to refer to what truly is, inclusive of all experience, flawed or not.

But here's the revelation: what I really meant by “actuality” all along was something much closer to what Kant meant by the noumenal.

---

The Modern Switcheroo

In everyday usage today:

• Reality is the dominant term for “what’s real.”

• Actuality is relegated to meaning “what’s currently happening” or sometimes “what has been instantiated.”

This flips the older, more philosophically rigorous meanings.

Today, people casually use reality to mean both what they perceive and what they believe is truly out there. We say, “That’s my reality,” when we really mean, “That’s how things seem to me.”

And actuality? It’s almost disappeared from everyday conversation — except in newsrooms or technical discussions.

So here’s where I’ve landed:

---

A Clearer Triad: Noumenal, Actuality, Reality

To clarify things for myself — and possibly for others — I now see these terms this way:

• Noumenal: What truly is, independent of all perception, language, and cognition. The raw, unfiltered foundation of existence. Objective reality, if such a thing can be said to exist. This is what I had in mind when I said “actuality” — and it's what Buddhist thought might call ultimate reality or enlightenment, the emptiness (śūnyatā) behind appearances.

• Actuality: The totality of what is experienced — including misperceptions, illusions, dreams, delusions. If it happens in consciousness, it is actual, even if it doesn’t reflect reality. This includes both phenomenal experiences and reality itself.

• Reality: What we believe to be real based on perception, cognition, and consensus. Often confused with the noumenal, but really just the structured, filtered version of the world we navigate every day. What Kant would call the phenomenal world.

---

The Illusion of Objectivity

This naturally brings us to the slipperiness of the phrase “objective reality.”

We like to believe we can step outside ourselves and see things “objectively.” But we can’t — not entirely. Even science, as rigorous as it is, depends on human observers, instruments built by humans, interpreted by humans. Every so-called “objective fact” is mediated through some system of meaning.

That’s why I’ve always liked the phrase:

“Objectivity is subjective, and subjectivity is objective.”

It may sound paradoxical, but it’s a reflection of the human condition. We want to believe in something solid and observer-independent — and maybe it’s out there (the noumenal!). But all we can ever experience is what passes through our lens of subjectivity.

And yet, the reporting of subjective experience — the acknowledgment of perception — is itself a kind of objective data. Especially in disciplines like psychology or phenomenology, subjectivity becomes the field of study.

---

This diagram visually expresses a layered view of reality based on Kantian and post-Kantian ideas:

• Phenomenal Reality (outer circle): What we perceive — the world as shaped by our senses, cognition, and shared interpretation. This is the world of appearances.

• Actuality (middle circle): All that is experienced, including perception, imagination, misperception, and illusion. It's the content of consciousness, regardless of its truth.

• Noumenal (beneath the circles, reached by the arrow): The objective reality that exists outside and independent of experience — what is, even if we cannot fully access or describe it. The arrow suggests we aim toward the noumenal, but never fully enter it.

The Deep Tie to Enlightenment

This is where Western philosophy brushes up against Eastern thought.

What Kant called the noumenal, Buddhist philosophy might call ultimate reality, or tathatā (“suchness”) — the true nature of things, which cannot be grasped by conceptual thinking, only realized. In that sense, the noumenal realm isn’t just unknowable — it’s beyond knowing, because it exists prior to the subject-object split.

In Zen, for example, the moment of enlightenment is seeing past the illusion of the phenomenal world and directly “touching” the noumenal — even if it’s not graspable in words.

So maybe that word I was reaching for all along, when I said actuality, was this:

Noumenal — not as a technical term, but as a placeholder for what is ultimately real. The ground of being. The is-ness beyond all filters.

---

Final Thought

We have these words — reality, actuality, objectivity — but they bend under pressure. They drift with time and culture. But what we’re reaching for hasn’t changed.

Kant saw the problem. So did the Buddha.

Maybe we’re all just pointing — like fingers at the moon — toward something we can’t quite grasp, but that we can, in rare moments of clarity, unmistakably feel.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Past Is Not Sacred: How Religious Nostalgia Is Undermining Progress

In a time of existential challenges—climate collapse, AI disruption, the death of a progressive Pope Francis, during a time of a corrupt career criminal and onvicted felon, adjudicated sexual abuser POTUS, Donald Trump, global inequality—one might expect our politics to be forward-facing, grounded in science, reason, and inclusion. Instead, a strange and troubling regression has taken hold, especially within the modern Republican Party: a collective yearning for the past, not just in policy but in worldview. And at the center of this nostalgia is religion—not as a source of private meaning, but as a tool of political revivalism.

As we reflect on Earth Day, I can’t help but remember my first experience on April 22, 1972, when I joined my high school scuba club to clean up under the Tacoma Old Town dock. It was a small but meaningful way to contribute to preserving our planet, and it set the foundation for my lifelong commitment to environmental awareness.

While the past is not sacred, it’s important to recognize the lessons it holds as we approach the present with open eyes and prepare for the future. What holds us back from looking forward and taking proactive steps? For decades, modern American conservatism, the Republican Party, certain religious groups, some traditions, ignorance, and harmful intentions have all worked to prevent progress. Their efforts often keep us from doing what’s best for everyone, not just a powerful few.

Voices like New York Times columnist Ross Douthat promote the idea that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” suggesting we should return to a time when belief in a higher power—specifically a Christian one—was considered the bedrock of civilization. In his book Believe: Why Everyone Should Believe, Douthat claims that religion is essential, not optional. It's a seductive message in a chaotic world: return to the old ways, and clarity will follow.

But this logic is both historically flawed and philosophically hollow.

There was a time, millennia ago, when religion helped people interpret a mysterious world. It gave shape to fear, offered rituals for grief, and bound early societies. But that usefulness expired the moment religion resisted growth. When science, rational inquiry, and humanistic philosophy began illuminating reality, many religious institutions responded not with curiosity, but with persecution. Heretics were burned. Scientists were imprisoned. Women were accused of witchcraft. And to this day, religious ideology continues to be used to suppress marginalized groups, censor knowledge, and deny bodily autonomy.

Rather than step aside as humanity evolved, religion dug in its heels—and in some corners, it still is.

Today’s Christian nationalism, anti-science rhetoric, and rigid moral codes aren't about "faith" in any meaningful or compassionate sense. They're about power. They're about recasting civil society in the mold of a past that was not simpler or purer—but more hierarchical, more patriarchal, and more controlled. A past where obedience was prized over inquiry, and where the "truth" could only be spoken from a pulpit.

This isn’t spiritual; it’s strategic. It’s theocratic nostalgia masquerading as moral clarity.

And it’s deeply incompatible with modern democratic life.

True wisdom doesn’t begin with fear. It begins with curiosity. With doubt. With the courage to ask hard questions about ourselves, our institutions, and our assumptions. Religion can still offer community, art, and metaphorical insight. But it cannot, and must not, be allowed to masquerade as the sole authority on ethics, identity, or truth.

We are not in a moral vacuum. We are in a moral reckoning. And it demands more from us than ancient texts and fearful obedience. It demands that we move forward—not back.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

 

10 Commandments - If Enlightenment Were Involved

If Jews and Christians had attained a higher level of spiritual or philosophical enlightenment, the 10 Commandments could have been interpreted to embody universal principles of compassion, interconnectedness, and self-awareness. But they weren't. Why? 

IF they came from "God", why were they so...as they are?

A therapist might describe the personality who gave us the 10 Commandments as someone deeply concerned with moral boundaries, authority, and communal harmony, yet possibly struggling with guilt, rigidity, and a strong need for external validation.

Why is slavery being bad not mentioned? Why aren't many important moral issues not mentioned? Was it communicated from a "God" through a man, to his followers? Was it the ramblings just of the man who gave them to his people? At a time when they needed something like this to hold them together as they were drifting into unfocused popular beliefs?

Here's a possible interpretation of the 10 Commandments with a more enlightened viewpoint to them:

1. Honor the Unity of All Life

Recognize the interconnectedness of all beings and the divine spark within every aspect of existence.

2. Cultivate Compassion and Kindness

Practice empathy, understanding, and kindness towards all living beings, striving to alleviate suffering wherever it is found.

3. Seek Truth and Wisdom

Pursue knowledge and wisdom with humility, always questioning, learning, and growing.

4. Respect the Earth and Its Resources

Honor the Earth as a sacred home, using its resources with care and gratitude, and working to preserve it for future generations.

5. Live with Integrity

Be honest and true in your words and actions, aligning your life with your deepest values and principles.

6. Honor the Diversity of Beliefs

Respect and appreciate the different paths that others may take in their spiritual or philosophical journeys, recognizing that there are many ways to seek truth.

7. Foster Community and Cooperation

Work towards building strong, supportive communities that uplift all members and promote peace and cooperation.

8. Practice Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Let go of grudges and anger, seeking to heal and reconcile with those who have wronged you, and encouraging others to do the same.

9. Encourage Creativity and Self-Expression

Support the free expression of creativity in yourself and others, recognizing it as a vital aspect of the human spirit.

10. Live with Gratitude and Mindfulness

Approach life with an attitude of gratitude, being mindful of the present moment, and appreciating the beauty and wonder of existence.

These commandments would focus on universal values that transcend specific religious or cultural boundaries, aiming for a harmonious and enlightened way of living.

Good Citizens – Creating Enlightened Society
Thich Nhat Hanh July 29, 2021 

Buddha Mind, Buddha Body Walking Toward Enlightenment

Thich Nhat Hanh

Generating the Mind for Enlightenment

The Dalai Lama

Cheers! Sláinte! Anicca!