In Medieval Europe, monks created âilluminated manuscriptsâ: books and documents embellished with miniature illustrations, flourishes, and bespoke styling. They were writing each one by hand anyway, so why not add some light artistry?
But by 1440, Johannes Gutenberg had arrived with the printing press, document creation became more structured and text-driven, and illuminated manuscripts began to fade away.
Nearly six hundred years later, bloggers stare into HTML <textarea> inputs, as rigid as any of Gutenbergâs text block frames.
But, as Iâve discovered over the last six months, one of the most enjoyable aspects of running your own blog is that you can write whatever one-off custom code, elements, and illustrations you want for each post.
You can create an âilluminated blog,â with code-as-art in any post, mirroring the monastic scriptoria of the 13th century â except instead of using silver rods on vellum, we use Cursor on CSS.
Here are a few âilluminationsâ Iâve enjoyed putting together for recent posts.
When discussing the appearance of fluorescent bulbs, I made the phrase âvibrate slightlyâ⌠vibrate slightly:
When youâre in that environment, faces look tired and flat and discolored. Objects in your peripheral vision vibrate slightly. Everything looks a little off.
I added an interactive, styled perspective list to avoid a wall of text in the post:
I know the Buddhist angle isnât everyoneâs thing. But theyâre not the only ones who have glimpsed this idea:
Different Traditions, Same Insight
Quantum physicist John Wheeler argues that we live in a âparticipatory universeâ and that the observer is not separate from what is observed â our measurement (or way of looking) defines what seems to happen.
Ancient Greek Pyrrhonian skeptics advocated for suspending all judgement on the true nature of things, realizing that any appearance can be challenged or changed when seen from a different perspective.
Psychologist Jean Piaget put forth the theory that the mind actively constructs its own reality, rather than passively mirroring it. He observed how childrenâs conceptual frameworks evolve and fundamentally change what appears ârealâ to them.
Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandranâs work revealed how the brain invents details to fit internal expectations (or, perhaps, âways of looking.â). His work with phantom limbs and optical illusions showed that what we perceive isnât always in direct contact with reality.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote of the noumenon (the âthing-in-itselfâ) and the phenomenon (how it appears to us), arguing that itâs impossible for us to access any unfiltered thing â we only get our mindâs representation of it.
The Jewish mystics â Kabbalists â talk of Ein Sof and the world as emanations of layered illusions, or âveils,â and how reality is only perceived as filtered through vessels â ways of looking â called Sefirot.
Stephen Wolframâs âobserver theoryâ proposes that physics itself cannot be disentangled from the nature of us as observers, and that our observational nature is critical even in determining the most fundamental laws we attribute to the universe.
The Hindu Advaita Vedanta leans on the concept of MÄyÄ, or illusion: that the phenomenal world appears distinct and real, but is ultimately just a mental and sensory construction.
Byron Katie's âThe Workâ asks four questions of your perception of each experience, culminating in âwho would you be without that thought?â and then prompting you to experience it differently by inverting your beliefs.
The Biblical Book of Job moves from one lens to another on the same situation â Jobâs moral-ledger-based bewilderment (âwhy hasnât virtue earned reward?â), his friendsâ retribution calculus (âyour suffering means you must have sinnedâ), and ultimately Godâs whirlwind responses revealing the insufficiency of any mortal viewpoint to grasp the full story as He sees it.
I created an email window rather than taking a screenshot or just putting it in text (complete with hover effects on the buttons):
Misuse of your Stanford account
Misuse of your Stanford account
From:
RRedacted Name<Redacted Email>
To:
Andy Bromberg<abromberg@alumni.stanford.edu>
Date:Fri, May 17, 2:32 PM
Dear Mr. Bromberg,
My name is [redacted name], and I am the [redacted title] at the Stanford Alumni Association.
I am writing to you today because it appears that you have used your Stanford alumni email account (abromberg) for a mass email or spamming effort. In just the last 30 days, over 900 emails were sent from your email alias noreply@alumni.stanford.edu. These emails are being flagged and processed by email servers which hurts our domain reputation, and potential problems for all alumni.stanford.edu users.
I added a simple iMessage-like chat window to illustrate an interaction:
They might agree to the embargo to hear the pitch. Or, they might reply:
Chat
Weâve got some really exciting news at Acme Corp. Iâd love to share with you. Could you agree to an embargo for next Thursday at 9am ET?
Is this an exclusive?
And more
There are more buried around the blog, and I expect to keep going. Writing posts is fun, but even better is adding a dash of illumination. Maybe the monks had it right after all.
Looking for more to read?
Want to hear about new essays? Subscribe to my roughly-monthly newsletter recapping my recent writing and things I'm enjoying: