...and a bunch o' hippies like in bob's photo all round. In 3-D.

However, your mention of Red Square has caused me to imagine the following for your author image: It's Red Square at the Kremlin, and there's a glass crypt like they used to have for Lenin, except it's you inside, more or less alive, possibly exercising extreme pranayama, and lying in either in some tangled NKB posture or the asana that has to do with experiencing the good aftereffects of the workout.

@ Scott Miller:
If you're logged in, you can try using the Add Media routine, at https://ckmacleod.com/wp-admin/media-new.php, and then, on the page that shows up after you've successfully selected and uploaded the file, copy the link that shows up (about 3/4 of the way down in the "dialogue box").

Scott Miller wrote:

Would it be stupid and or pretentious for it to be just a read pamphlet looking thing with typewriter font for the titling? Maybe typewriter font all the way through the main text?
Then I could be wearing a little communist cap for the author picture.
I’m serious. Maybe not about the cap, but the rest of it.

I'm very much in favor of stupid and pretentious, but it makes me want you to change the title to "The Hathayogist Manifesto," which is only stupid, not really pretentious given how negatively the vast majority, though not including me and my monkey, view capital-C Communism. (As you know, me and my monkey favor Communism, but only the fantastically genocidal kind.)

You know your yoga world much better than I do, but I don't think you want to do anything whose self-consciousness interferes with, impinges upon, or limits reception of the book. I think with a book like this one you want it as much as possible to blend into the life/environment of most readers, and fall away. Nothing preventing you from putting out different editions.

@ Scott Miller:
Um, I'll let you know after I'm done laughing my head off... and can type... more...

@ Scott Miller:
I'm an amateur on Levinas at this point, and am curious what you're reading.

He was writing in the pre-internet era, and his central scenic metaphor, the "face to face" as the primordial, foundational event, prior to and beyond all philosophies and anti-philosophies, conflicts with the facelessness of blogging in an interesting way. He's not, in my reading, urging "intimacy" per se, some kind of glorification of physical proximity or presence, but he's not avoiding it either. It's something I'm trying to think my way through.

More important than the location or corporeality of the other is, I think, the freedom of the other, his or her "interiority" in your (my) (one's) exteriority. She could be "like" me, but she might not be. She could be "friend, hostile, master, student," and the indeterminacy is always implicit regardless of whatever role we may assign to each other. The appearance of the other's face already says "plurality" and points to infinity, creation out of nothing, but I think that's true inherently for all confrontation with the other, whether it takes place across a pillow or across thousands of miles of cable.

@ Scott Miller:
Blog, he said.

Unfortunately, that's an excellent idea. The only thing that's a little bit saving about it is that blogs are considered a tad passe. Unfortunately, observing that blogs are a tad passe is also a tad passe. And, as we know, worrying about whether anything is passe is totally over. So we're left with the problem of your having had a good, possibly excellent, and exploitable idea. Overlaps with my thing in ways you obviously wouldn't and couldn't know fersurefersure.

We'll just have to deal with it somehow.

bob wrote:

And I eat beans just about every day

But not for every meal?