there were these men
and seperate fog.
they probably saw it.
i think of how a new beast supplants the painful memory of the old.
The Rascal and The Bandit.
The vapor as a geiser from his lungs.
like the suddenly halted old yeller.
but right there in town, he said.
the folks never even knew how they were damaged.
In their forward motion, they became oblivious, somehow.
Which is more commendable?
The lazy soldier
or
the apathetic citizen?
And how should I test my hypothesis.
No flashlight is worth that, no matter how bright.
but still, I am held alert by the beam of light.
Also, he called today,
who cannot comment on laziness or apathy.
and added a credit to an almost nominal account.
and the rope bridge may have swayed but held its head up.
Veil'd in flesh, the Godhead see;
Hail, th'incarnate Deity:
Pleased, as man, with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel!
Saturday, December 27, 2008
for so long, I was young
to take the attitude
of the best friend.
I don't feel it anymore.
to with true, quiet joy, recite your mass.
Oh.
Oh, God.
Oh, Immanuel.
Coincidence, no.
Apocalypse, not.
But he, without waiver, spoke the Father's word.
Thy will...
but, not the perfect one, no.
just a mimicry,
Yet even the poorest still life indicates the first fruit.
and this, is this harvestable whatsoever?
of the best friend.
I don't feel it anymore.
to with true, quiet joy, recite your mass.
Oh.
Oh, God.
Oh, Immanuel.
Coincidence, no.
Apocalypse, not.
But he, without waiver, spoke the Father's word.
Thy will...
but, not the perfect one, no.
just a mimicry,
Yet even the poorest still life indicates the first fruit.
and this, is this harvestable whatsoever?
Saturday, December 06, 2008
wow not a metaphor if you hear the rest...
this was winter
death looks down
the color of the hills
there is a gate
he will climb over that with his treasure
it will be dark then
he does not disturb the silence.
lying still, always facing the constant motion.
(wow)
Linda Gregg
All of it singing.
death looks down
the color of the hills
there is a gate
he will climb over that with his treasure
it will be dark then
he does not disturb the silence.
lying still, always facing the constant motion.
(wow)
Linda Gregg
All of it singing.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
the new life.
when are we raised?
when is the new life?
Is this whole 'day', under the sun,
just a thumb-twiddling stall?
I hope not.
I hope,
rather,
there is terrestrial redemption.
new life.
I hope.
when is the new life?
Is this whole 'day', under the sun,
just a thumb-twiddling stall?
I hope not.
I hope,
rather,
there is terrestrial redemption.
new life.
I hope.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
on hobbies
On hobbies,
A model train set in the basement was either built, bought, or spontaneously generated.
As the third possibility is only a figment of the silver screen, I will consider only the prior pair.
Model train design, manufacture, and sales is an industry. Jobs are created, utilities are consumed, cars are driven, posters are printed, etc.
Why?
So some child (or man/child) can be entertained?
Why do humans engage in entertainment? In leisure?
Two probable reasons come to mind:
1) We are not wired to instinctively accomplish the tasks which we feel compelled to accomplish for economic reasons. (We were not made to provide for ourselves in menial labors like putting the heads on pins, managing a hobby store, etc., but we do.)
2) We are somehow un-fulfilled in any (perhaps the aforementioned tasks, perhaps even in the tasks necessary for life)and seek a sense of mastery in another simpler or more 'interesting' task.
We were not made to enslave ourselves to labor, let alone labors not directly affecting our sustainance. If we are not fully able to feel that our labor is accomplishing our provition and protection, then we must pursue a sense of satisfaction from another source. We may seek our satisfaction through a 'hard reset' to our hard-wired drives through:
1) A lifestyle which supplies exactly and directly for our needs.
2) Leisure, which finds us in a state of simple, direct, due provision and protection without the application of any labor. (picture: man on dock, fishing; woman on couch, reading)
I believe we generally find the first solution implausible when the surrounding society is non-participatory. So, we resign ourselves to the second solution. We intentionally participate in tasks which assume provision and protection but have no exchangable value (who would pay a man to watch TV?).
However, if a person finds him/herself only satisfied by participation in deeds without any provisional, protective, or exchangable value, this is probably mild insanity, and may qualify the sufferer for an accelerated rate of expiration...(but for a supportive political/familial condition).
Coming soon: "On retirement", "On non-exchangable goods", and "On wanton consumption"
A model train set in the basement was either built, bought, or spontaneously generated.
As the third possibility is only a figment of the silver screen, I will consider only the prior pair.
Model train design, manufacture, and sales is an industry. Jobs are created, utilities are consumed, cars are driven, posters are printed, etc.
Why?
So some child (or man/child) can be entertained?
Why do humans engage in entertainment? In leisure?
Two probable reasons come to mind:
1) We are not wired to instinctively accomplish the tasks which we feel compelled to accomplish for economic reasons. (We were not made to provide for ourselves in menial labors like putting the heads on pins, managing a hobby store, etc., but we do.)
2) We are somehow un-fulfilled in any (perhaps the aforementioned tasks, perhaps even in the tasks necessary for life)and seek a sense of mastery in another simpler or more 'interesting' task.
We were not made to enslave ourselves to labor, let alone labors not directly affecting our sustainance. If we are not fully able to feel that our labor is accomplishing our provition and protection, then we must pursue a sense of satisfaction from another source. We may seek our satisfaction through a 'hard reset' to our hard-wired drives through:
1) A lifestyle which supplies exactly and directly for our needs.
2) Leisure, which finds us in a state of simple, direct, due provision and protection without the application of any labor. (picture: man on dock, fishing; woman on couch, reading)
I believe we generally find the first solution implausible when the surrounding society is non-participatory. So, we resign ourselves to the second solution. We intentionally participate in tasks which assume provision and protection but have no exchangable value (who would pay a man to watch TV?).
However, if a person finds him/herself only satisfied by participation in deeds without any provisional, protective, or exchangable value, this is probably mild insanity, and may qualify the sufferer for an accelerated rate of expiration...(but for a supportive political/familial condition).
Coming soon: "On retirement", "On non-exchangable goods", and "On wanton consumption"
on capitalism
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
-Winston Churchill
-Winston Churchill
Saturday, November 08, 2008
eucharist
Well, I don't want to comment too sharply on the doctrinal qualities of 'substantiation'
But, Craig nailed the metaphor of the eucharist as the apparent driver of Margaret Yadusky's life.
But, Craig nailed the metaphor of the eucharist as the apparent driver of Margaret Yadusky's life.
scale
Magnificent spatial impression in my adulthood has been hard to find.
I mean, the grand canyon got me earlier this year - it WAS big.
But, were I only, say, 8, canyon de chelly would have changed my life.
though much less grand.
I understand the quests of lunatics.
The 20,000'+ crowd.
People who need simultaneous grandeur and limitless horizons.
Even I still find some perspective in the beach vista from a widow's walk.
But now, the view from a lighthouse hardly holds wonderment.
Some airports are still cool the first time.
But on the flight home, it's just a race to the baggage claim.
jading? I don't know the participle form, but I feel it.
Even my grandparent's old house, 3500 feet, when I was 5,
was a hundred times bigger than a 6500' house now, 2 decades later.
A Gehry building is a novelty, not a monolith.
Perhaps there are multiple edges slicing.
1) I have seen much.
2) I have imagined more.
3) I have seen into the sights and imaginations of others.
Photo, Film, Connectivity, Semi-Conductivity, Distribution, Transportation,
If I had lived without those, could I still be wowed?
I mean, the grand canyon got me earlier this year - it WAS big.
But, were I only, say, 8, canyon de chelly would have changed my life.
though much less grand.
I understand the quests of lunatics.
The 20,000'+ crowd.
People who need simultaneous grandeur and limitless horizons.
Even I still find some perspective in the beach vista from a widow's walk.
But now, the view from a lighthouse hardly holds wonderment.
Some airports are still cool the first time.
But on the flight home, it's just a race to the baggage claim.
jading? I don't know the participle form, but I feel it.
Even my grandparent's old house, 3500 feet, when I was 5,
was a hundred times bigger than a 6500' house now, 2 decades later.
A Gehry building is a novelty, not a monolith.
Perhaps there are multiple edges slicing.
1) I have seen much.
2) I have imagined more.
3) I have seen into the sights and imaginations of others.
Photo, Film, Connectivity, Semi-Conductivity, Distribution, Transportation,
If I had lived without those, could I still be wowed?
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
# 70-something
me, kettle?
oh.
wow.
i see my speck, and raise you a log.
i am yet alert to enumerate.
hmm.
is this the classic?
I call.
you.
out.
logger.
"pot," I call you: 'black'.
And tomorrow, and tomorrow,
and the petty pace, you have now defined.
called.
and raised.
check.
and 'checkmate'.
eat it.
get off me.
resentment devours sympathy.
I hope he's right, and the novacain suits the toothless.
oh.
wow.
i see my speck, and raise you a log.
i am yet alert to enumerate.
hmm.
is this the classic?
I call.
you.
out.
logger.
"pot," I call you: 'black'.
And tomorrow, and tomorrow,
and the petty pace, you have now defined.
called.
and raised.
check.
and 'checkmate'.
eat it.
get off me.
resentment devours sympathy.
I hope he's right, and the novacain suits the toothless.
Monday, October 27, 2008
the greats.
Historically, so many people have made decisions for indirect, unselfish reasons which ultimately became part of their paths to their historical remembrance, that I detect myself to be on a bullet train into obscurity.
Mark 14:3-8.
3 While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7 “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 “She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9 “Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”
Michael Faraday was a blacksmith, book binder, valet, and secretary.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Secretary and music copyist.
Galileo wished to be a priest, and instead was arrested by the church.
Mark 14:3-8.
3 While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. 7 “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. 8 “She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. 9 “Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”
Michael Faraday was a blacksmith, book binder, valet, and secretary.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Secretary and music copyist.
Galileo wished to be a priest, and instead was arrested by the church.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
when the elevator music starts.
Did you go hungry this week?
Were you homeless this week?
Were you un-clothed this week?
Were you beaten this week?
Were you imprisoned this week?
Were you even disowned?
My week was okay, too.
Were you homeless this week?
Were you un-clothed this week?
Were you beaten this week?
Were you imprisoned this week?
Were you even disowned?
My week was okay, too.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Addenda 3
There are two ways to find one's self more effectively wealthy than ever the case previous.
1) more work
2) more risk.
Work, as the primitive commodity, is clearly the most fundamental measurement of value.
But risk, as the willingness to provide work on speculation, may also be rewarded with an estimation of value.
One's work ought to provide for one's needs of preservation through nourishment and protection.
If one's labor is not immediately directed toward those tasks, it must be exchangeable for one or both of those needs.
When one's exchangeable labor is not sufficient to acquire nourishment and protection, one ought redirect their energy to more direct efforts of finding/raising food, or creating clothing and shelter.
If one can neither provide directly for their needs, or exchange their labor to provide for their needs, they will die unless propped up by family (genetic or political).
An economic society may be primarily measured by the indirectness of one's labor toward providing for one's needs.
A society in which all farm, weave, and build, is dissimilar to the society in which each role is filled by another person.
As to the superiority of one form or the other, I will not hastily judge.
Obviously, specialization can provide more for more with less. But, perhaps generalization can provide less, with the same, for all?
Risk is the willingness to labor in vain if there is a possibility that the labor may somehow not actually be in vain.
Risk tells the worker to work more as this may yield more nourishment or security.
Risk tells the worker to work differently as this may provide as much nourishment or security with less energy.
Risk tells the worker to part with what is known in exchange for the possibility that the unknown is superior.
Either Labor or Risk in isolation is senseless. One labors to nurture an apple tree for its fruit, thought there is the risk of loss by storm, beast, or plunder. One offers the tended apples for sale though there is the risk that the potatoes purchased are not good to eat.
Yet, one ought not tend a tree for boredom's sake alone. This is a hobby. It is a waste.
Neither ought one take his new potatoes and senselessly offer them for resale, this ultimately devalues the potato and thus the first exchange.
1) more work
2) more risk.
Work, as the primitive commodity, is clearly the most fundamental measurement of value.
But risk, as the willingness to provide work on speculation, may also be rewarded with an estimation of value.
One's work ought to provide for one's needs of preservation through nourishment and protection.
If one's labor is not immediately directed toward those tasks, it must be exchangeable for one or both of those needs.
When one's exchangeable labor is not sufficient to acquire nourishment and protection, one ought redirect their energy to more direct efforts of finding/raising food, or creating clothing and shelter.
If one can neither provide directly for their needs, or exchange their labor to provide for their needs, they will die unless propped up by family (genetic or political).
An economic society may be primarily measured by the indirectness of one's labor toward providing for one's needs.
A society in which all farm, weave, and build, is dissimilar to the society in which each role is filled by another person.
As to the superiority of one form or the other, I will not hastily judge.
Obviously, specialization can provide more for more with less. But, perhaps generalization can provide less, with the same, for all?
Risk is the willingness to labor in vain if there is a possibility that the labor may somehow not actually be in vain.
Risk tells the worker to work more as this may yield more nourishment or security.
Risk tells the worker to work differently as this may provide as much nourishment or security with less energy.
Risk tells the worker to part with what is known in exchange for the possibility that the unknown is superior.
Either Labor or Risk in isolation is senseless. One labors to nurture an apple tree for its fruit, thought there is the risk of loss by storm, beast, or plunder. One offers the tended apples for sale though there is the risk that the potatoes purchased are not good to eat.
Yet, one ought not tend a tree for boredom's sake alone. This is a hobby. It is a waste.
Neither ought one take his new potatoes and senselessly offer them for resale, this ultimately devalues the potato and thus the first exchange.
Addenda 2
There is labor which you are given.
There is labor which you steal.
There is labor which you enact.
There is labor which you buy.
One is given labor through inheritance, friendship, loyalty, parental nurture, governmental subsidy, or supernatural providence.
Some say it is all super natural providence, but they have not thought it through well enough.
One steals labor through manipulation, intimidation, taxation, or literal theft.
Some are skilled in squeezing others for a desired deed or non-deed through guilt or flattery.
Others use guns, or threats, or raised voices or fabrications of rank.
Some use the government. This is Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Communism, etc. From the able to the needy.
Some just steal. A Watch, a necklace, a car.
One's self may be employed as the primary producer of one's economic output.
This has been more popular (necessary) in the past than it is today.
Still, the theoretical produce of one's mind and body are the essential gauges of human economic value.
But, one may find themselves in control of the labor of another when some other person places a definite value on their time.
So, if someone describes their self-perceived economic value in a way which corresponds to another's perception of the same, then the one may buy the labor of the other. This is the deepest economic kernel of employment.
So, which is best? A balanced portfolio of all but the second.
There is labor which you steal.
There is labor which you enact.
There is labor which you buy.
One is given labor through inheritance, friendship, loyalty, parental nurture, governmental subsidy, or supernatural providence.
Some say it is all super natural providence, but they have not thought it through well enough.
One steals labor through manipulation, intimidation, taxation, or literal theft.
Some are skilled in squeezing others for a desired deed or non-deed through guilt or flattery.
Others use guns, or threats, or raised voices or fabrications of rank.
Some use the government. This is Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Communism, etc. From the able to the needy.
Some just steal. A Watch, a necklace, a car.
One's self may be employed as the primary producer of one's economic output.
This has been more popular (necessary) in the past than it is today.
Still, the theoretical produce of one's mind and body are the essential gauges of human economic value.
But, one may find themselves in control of the labor of another when some other person places a definite value on their time.
So, if someone describes their self-perceived economic value in a way which corresponds to another's perception of the same, then the one may buy the labor of the other. This is the deepest economic kernel of employment.
So, which is best? A balanced portfolio of all but the second.
Addenda 1
Smith may well be correct that specialization is the secret to economic efficiency.
But let me argue that niche generalization is the secret to wealth.
Is not the conductor paid more than the violinist? Why?
Because the conductor can play the violin, oboe, and trumpet.
Perhaps not a "true proficient," but neither a slouch, and clearly the master.
The composer and orchestrator are even second to the conductor.
And further, the man who runs the symphony is greater.
For the man who can balance an orchestra, a dance troupe, a theater, and benefactors; he is greatest.
Who is worth more?
The man with the chain saw, or the man who knows which tree brings the most at market?
Neither.
The man who knows both and more is the one who can run the company profitably.
For one must know the material, the technique, the process, and the final product all at once to supply the good demanded.
A man must build an armoire before he can properly hew the log.
But, perhaps I must bow to Smith again.
Are not these monarchs of particular industrial management only another speciality?
Yes, for there is but one manager per company, and perhaps a few per category of business.
Yet, if a man could be the manager of many companies, is he still more specialized?
Him, we would call a mogul.
Yet, he is most specialized.
Though he is the Renaissance man.
Alas.
But let me argue that niche generalization is the secret to wealth.
Is not the conductor paid more than the violinist? Why?
Because the conductor can play the violin, oboe, and trumpet.
Perhaps not a "true proficient," but neither a slouch, and clearly the master.
The composer and orchestrator are even second to the conductor.
And further, the man who runs the symphony is greater.
For the man who can balance an orchestra, a dance troupe, a theater, and benefactors; he is greatest.
Who is worth more?
The man with the chain saw, or the man who knows which tree brings the most at market?
Neither.
The man who knows both and more is the one who can run the company profitably.
For one must know the material, the technique, the process, and the final product all at once to supply the good demanded.
A man must build an armoire before he can properly hew the log.
But, perhaps I must bow to Smith again.
Are not these monarchs of particular industrial management only another speciality?
Yes, for there is but one manager per company, and perhaps a few per category of business.
Yet, if a man could be the manager of many companies, is he still more specialized?
Him, we would call a mogul.
Yet, he is most specialized.
Though he is the Renaissance man.
Alas.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
the acceptible
I am boring.
I hope for things which could be explained
but perhaps are improvements
or at least are inherent consequences.
natural and predictable are spades
to the hearts of the contrivance and novelty.
Am i requesting predictability?
my pulse calms and beckons.
but to what?
oh dear god, the universe is too vast.
and I can't really tell it so, what a conundrum.
what might shakespeare be thinking of me?
Ass of mouth with knight's soul, solely asinine in the mouth of night and wine.
I hope for things which could be explained
but perhaps are improvements
or at least are inherent consequences.
natural and predictable are spades
to the hearts of the contrivance and novelty.
Am i requesting predictability?
my pulse calms and beckons.
but to what?
oh dear god, the universe is too vast.
and I can't really tell it so, what a conundrum.
what might shakespeare be thinking of me?
Ass of mouth with knight's soul, solely asinine in the mouth of night and wine.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
it must be fear
why not elect the mor(m)on.?
from whence my trepidation?
I think I'd just rather live here than switzerland.
but my threat remains.
if congress squelches the fair tax - regardless the commander -
I must undoubtedly supress my patriotism in favor of my ideology.
esle I am the hedonist, and not philosophically so.
from whence my trepidation?
I think I'd just rather live here than switzerland.
but my threat remains.
if congress squelches the fair tax - regardless the commander -
I must undoubtedly supress my patriotism in favor of my ideology.
esle I am the hedonist, and not philosophically so.
damn $240m
not to say that i wouldn't like a quarter billion bucks. that sounds perfect.
but i'd rather be the guy who could talk himself (and you) out of hell.
there it is. now huckabee, kick ass or die trying.
but i'd rather be the guy who could talk himself (and you) out of hell.
there it is. now huckabee, kick ass or die trying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)