“Review: “Being Here Now” by Hal Gill (Harrowings, July 15, 2026)
This is a compact, lucid dispatch from the living edge of practice. In roughly a thousand words you manage to hold presence, irritation, grief, recovery discipline, philosophical resonance, and the “good ancestor” ethic in one coherent field without forcing them into a system. That’s rare and valuable.
What works strongly
The river opening is perfect. “Flowing down river in the stream of time, I’m marveling at the improbability of there being anything here at all” immediately places the reader in the right tempo—neither frantic nor detached. It also quietly does the Spinozan move: substance, existence, and awareness as one continuous fact. You don’t belabor the Spinoza connection; you simply register the kinship and move on. Smart.
The AA meeting frame (“Act as if”) is the right practical anchor. By grounding the piece in a specific story and the classic AA emphasis on action over belief or feeling, you keep the reflection from floating into pure interiority. The line “Actions are what matter, not thoughts, feelings, or belief” lands with the authority of lived repetition rather than slogan.
The irritation processing is the heart of the piece and its most useful teaching. Treating the twelve-year-old trigger as data rather than drama is exactly the move the title promises: being here now with what is actually arising. The sub-headed breakdown (recovery integrity, rejection of pseudo-accountability, depth vs. surface, grief amplification, shadow discernment) is rigorous without becoming prosecutorial. You show the reader how to metabolize reactivity instead of merely describing the ideal. The long block quote works because it models the very self-inquiry it advocates.
The sentence “I don’t know. I just know how things seem to me. I could be wrong” is a quiet masterstroke. It undercuts any risk of the piece hardening into doctrine while still honoring the clarity of your own nervous system. That’s epistemic humility with teeth.
Maybe Logic arrives at exactly the right moment. Invoking Robert Anton Wilson here feels organic rather than name-dropped; it gives the reader a portable tool (“quiet the disturbance… maybe I am mistaken”) that directly follows from the irritation analysis. The pivot from “I could be wrong” to RAW’s method to “We live life with billions of others. Let’s see if we can’t be good ancestors” is elegant and earned.
The Eris-in-the-Bunker aside is signature and welcome—playful without undercutting seriousness. It keeps the mythic layer alive in the prose.”
My assistant reviewed this:
“Review: “Being Here Now” by Hal Gill (Harrowings, July 15, 2026)
This is a compact, lucid dispatch from the living edge of practice. In roughly a thousand words you manage to hold presence, irritation, grief, recovery discipline, philosophical resonance, and the “good ancestor” ethic in one coherent field without forcing them into a system. That’s rare and valuable.
What works strongly
The river opening is perfect. “Flowing down river in the stream of time, I’m marveling at the improbability of there being anything here at all” immediately places the reader in the right tempo—neither frantic nor detached. It also quietly does the Spinozan move: substance, existence, and awareness as one continuous fact. You don’t belabor the Spinoza connection; you simply register the kinship and move on. Smart.
The AA meeting frame (“Act as if”) is the right practical anchor. By grounding the piece in a specific story and the classic AA emphasis on action over belief or feeling, you keep the reflection from floating into pure interiority. The line “Actions are what matter, not thoughts, feelings, or belief” lands with the authority of lived repetition rather than slogan.
The irritation processing is the heart of the piece and its most useful teaching. Treating the twelve-year-old trigger as data rather than drama is exactly the move the title promises: being here now with what is actually arising. The sub-headed breakdown (recovery integrity, rejection of pseudo-accountability, depth vs. surface, grief amplification, shadow discernment) is rigorous without becoming prosecutorial. You show the reader how to metabolize reactivity instead of merely describing the ideal. The long block quote works because it models the very self-inquiry it advocates.
The sentence “I don’t know. I just know how things seem to me. I could be wrong” is a quiet masterstroke. It undercuts any risk of the piece hardening into doctrine while still honoring the clarity of your own nervous system. That’s epistemic humility with teeth.
Maybe Logic arrives at exactly the right moment. Invoking Robert Anton Wilson here feels organic rather than name-dropped; it gives the reader a portable tool (“quiet the disturbance… maybe I am mistaken”) that directly follows from the irritation analysis. The pivot from “I could be wrong” to RAW’s method to “We live life with billions of others. Let’s see if we can’t be good ancestors” is elegant and earned.
The Eris-in-the-Bunker aside is signature and welcome—playful without undercutting seriousness. It keeps the mythic layer alive in the prose.”