I'll do both. But society's perspective being the contrapositive of mine, I'll seem to it to be doing the contrapositive of what it expects of me -- taking it "with certitude, but also socially". That is to say: I can be proud of my loss -- I can treat it (why not?) as resounding evidence of a genius misunderstood, tangible proof of how far out front I am -- as long as, good God, I also take it socially: I must remember, that society measures Truth by observing the persons who claim that it's meaningful to themselves (such that the election shook a theory of how I’m understood), which means I must act as though I regard that Jamesian Truth as meaningful to me -- as though I'll be morally condemned for forgetting that critique of useless knowledge -- as though I remembered, at the last minute, that "Wisdom is a curse, when wisdom does nothing for the man who has it" -- which everyone knows, but also forgets, when he's the object of his own inquiry.

The referendum on my Senate Statement was analogous to this community's judgment of the last draft of this paper. And so I'll write the history of both that draft and my Senate campaign: " Each failed, because I failed, to find a thesis in my personal narrative." And because my social web has whispered that it wants to hear that thesis, I'll share that too.