Insight Into Creativity: Art Transliteration

       ⚠  Warning—this aesthetic philosophy deep-dive might be too inscrutably byzantine for you.

call-back to Under-Overwhelming essay
          Pretentiously vainglorious prefaces, titles, and abstruse words (like these) serve the same purpose as height-requirement signs at theme parks.

          To those who’ve chosen to jump off this cliff, heedless of the challenges, I commend you for your open-mindedness, willingness to try your brain at new concepts, and your marathon-level attention span (if you make it to the end).

          And to those comfortable within this ken: I thank you—up-front—for perusing the word-imagery fabrications of a philosopher-artist such as myself.  Please bear-with my liberal application of monsieur em-dash, madame hyphen, and cousin parenthesis.

hover for brief description �🔗 click for magnification or link

          Transliteration normally refers to slowly transcribing/translating—one character, word, symbol or hieroglyph at a time—one language into another.  Because art and poetry can seem like a foreign language, I’m going to crawl around inside my own gulliver and explain how I created both the two-dimensional artwork and poem titled: woad poem.  (Links are provided to add superfluous details or permit examining referenced artwork.  Did I mention this is a deep dive?) 

It Begins With a Mote of Detritus With Pearl-Potential:  Unsurprisingly, first ideas about a new creation can be born-out-of (borrowed from) works of others, or inspired by the artist’s earlier work.  When I saw this strong-contrast image of a nude—in December 2019 (while scrounging for creepy images for the collage AULDLANGSYNE's Mailbox)—I recognized it would be perfect for a future artwork and got out my butterfly net.

Architect’s Eye, Engineer’s Ingenuity and the Passion of a Serial-Killer:  When my time-to-create gland woke-up from a nap, I “found” about 50 similarly-stark images and began to experiment—slicing, smoothing, spinning, and fine-tuning.  After many days of failing to get even a tickle of that solving-the-puzzle feeling (I never became fully-absorbed) I stopped trying to hammer-tune this crap craft into something aesthetically pleasing to me.

Disappointing Creations Need Titles Too:  First I stared at it, then wondered about it, and—eventually—understood what failed to happen: I’d enjoyed the process of finding “just right” image slices, but received no spark during sculpt-construction.  I was enthralled by the building blocks but I disliked the structure.  So, I devised a jarring meta-title: imagine a suggestively-confusing title here.  (Meta because a title asking you to think of a title, is eating its own tale; and jarring because the adverb-adjective sticks in one’s word-smithery—it is not really the opposite of confusingly-suggestive which slides smoothly from eye to lizard-brain, but not-not the opposite either.)

A Realization-Reenactment (Focused on Aesthetics):  While doing the aforementioned disappointed-staring and title-devising, my attention kept returning to the left-side of the artwork.  What was drawing my eye?  Was I merely recognizing the first found-image pearl in that section?  Maybe a change in distance?  Thumbnail mode caused my interest to definitely be re-piqued, but, in close-up, the miasma of interlocking/overlapping shadows, edges, silhouettes, and flimsy fragments of fifty female photo-montaged forms forced my curiosity to flee (whew).  But, the leftmost portion—no matter if distant or full-screen—remained intriguing and its abstract-composites continued to tantalize.

A Literal Return to the Drawing Board:  With the leftmost portion as a focal-point, I restarted the cut-stitch-paste-gluing engine.  This lasted for a few daze.  After becoming deeply engrossed in the process, trimming and/or deleting about fifteen of the most detailed original images, changing the color pallet on at least ten, and totally redesigning the size and focus, the resulting artwork works.  For me.  And that’s all a creator can use to determine finish-quality.  It is appropriately asymmetrical, contains both blurred and crisp details, and the rest is mere suggestion, hint, and supposition.  Pleasing to the eye.  Maybe a smidgen-creepy, but that adds to the allure.

The More Difficult the Self-Challenges the Less Challenging the Self-Difficulties:  Sounds like an aphorism, but challenging myself is a successful way to keep creating.  My art keeps me learning.  I decided to craft a poem to accompany this artwork, incorporating a phrase I coined in a letter:
...The little things are the big things.  The big things might be able to take care of themselves, but ‘death by a million tiny cuts’—as metaphor—has an antithesis ‘bliss by a million tiny kisses’...
Critics Refer to This Next Part as a Pointless Tangent; I Prefer to Call it a Brief Aside:  I think it helps to think about a few claims made by Nietzsche in his 1872 work, The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music:
...the existence of mankind only appears to be justifiable when it is viewed as an aesthetic phenomenon...
...the highest form of artistic creation depends on some form of tension between opposing forces...
          Nietzsche's book is a dense, complexly-expansive, review of classical Greek dramatic theater and music.  Fourteen years later, in 1886, it was republished as The Birth of Tragedy, or: Hellenism and Pessimism with a second preface—written by Nietzsche himself—titled An Attempt at Self-Criticism.  (The first preface, in both, was written by the composer Richard Wagner . . . yes that Wagner, of antisemitism infamy.)

          I found this excerpt from his self-criticism poignant, not only because he describes yours-truly, but he appears to be describing (with sarcastic self-deprecation) his “target audience”:    
...artists with analytical tendencies with a capacity for retrospection (the type whom it’s always necessary to seek-out but with-whom one never wants to seek) who are also full of psychological innovations and artist’s-secrets...
The Nuts and Brain-Bolts Leading Up to My Two Dimensional Artwork waod poem:  My artwork descriptions, above, are definitely synopsis after-the-act.  I was not thinking about how my mind was working as it was creating.  (I understand some with less high-functioning autism are hampered by meta-meta thoughts-about-thoughts and—unfortunately—get bogged down, can't climb out of their own way, and suffer because of it.)  In looking back, I recall that my odd-intuitive-creative neurons (my only nod to NEFND in this essay) encouraged my imagination, which influenced me to begin with the strong-contrast nude I caught in my butterfly net, which—in-turn—eventually led me to craft the final “found image” collage-compilation from dozens of (fair-use-borrowed or copyright-stolen*) erotic images.

          I cropped the blackspace, mirror-flipped it, imagined the word poem reversed-upsidedown would approximate the word waod.  [Climbing deeper: Actually, my thoughts snag-focused on the ash diphthong in the word aesthetic and, subsequently, I zoomed in on the visual near-symmetricality of m-w and p-d...which came very near (rch-close) to a voila moment...and a title was born.]  Then I added the words, as title, at the mirror point and extended a small amount of white-grey to the left-edge's mirror point (literally a point) because I wanted to “break the rectangle rule” just a tiny bit.

The Bizarre Gears-and-Gristle-Soup Beneath the Circuitry of the Poem:  With this, I had a tall, thin, abstract image, which I could place vertically—adjacent to my as-yet-unwritten poem.  I also had a title.  And, I had the phrase: bliss by a billion tiny kisses.  That was all enough.  Because, by focusing on what I possessed, I discovered my theme.
 
          My life is not unlike many other people’s lives:  I have my share of missed opportunities and lost connections.  So, I would write a poem about tying together all the disconnected plot points.  Years ago, I wrote a short story about dénouement (where I only explained “what the characters were doing” in the final paragraphs).  So I began with:   

rarely are there anymore breathtaking dénouements in this place outside of

          This place? . .the world . . . the Internet . . . this blog . . .  or . . . 
 
          Intentionally ending in a dangling preposition (a broken grammar rule) causes the reader to assume the next line will complete the phrase (even though there is a large paragraph-break space between lines) and the brain is already filling in the gap: ...outside of Hollywood blockbusters? ...outside of novels?  ...outside of where!  And, I begin the next line without explaining.  The first line of the poem is an example of a hanging plot point, with a link to a relatively long story about dénouement (but one would need to know the definition to appreciate any of this).   Second line also ends in a preposition, but the phrase is completed in the third line.
 
yet as I crafted an important series of sentences for my son I stumbled on

bliss by a billion tiny kisses  (the antithesis of death’s trillion tiny cuts)

          Since I linked a word in the first line, I chose to do it again.  My second link was to the definition of idiom, which stumbled on and coin a phrase, are examples of.  My third line breaks the pattern (does not end in a word which normally begins a phrase) and, instead of linking to the definition of a word, links to the description of a ancient torture technique called Lingchi, which I point out is the opposite of my bliss by a billion tiny kisses.

          My forth line, however, does end in a preposition, and I continue the pattern by describing two more different types of cutting (the first medical the second figurative).
 
barely realized unless our split-brained attention is riven; focus forced into

          The fifth line continues the phrase begun at the end of the forth (with no links) but contains a line derived from my previous essay pertaining to underwhelming and overwhelming events: in that essay I posit that momentous events aid in the formation of long-term memories (which is also connected to this deep dive's first image).  More important to this poem, in this line, I begin with a statement and turn it into a question which suggests we all fail to take notice when we happen to do something for the first time in our lives (like thinking about how this poem was word-smithed).

novel-for-you non-momentous events; happening right now, or isn’t this a first for 
 
          I end the fifth line with a preposition but complete the phrase in the sixth line (which wasn't my only use of alliteration; another example: series of sentences for my son I stumbled) with a question about the composition of the poem itself.  I then begin another sentence which relies on the reader understanding the unwritten connection of what the pronoun it is referring to (which is: the poem itself):

encouragement and compliance of contemplation of this composition?   Today it’s

          In the seventh line I continue the sentence with the idea that when I posted the poem it would be at the top of my blog (metaphorically the capstone) which is a series of stories one-atop-the-previous (like a totem pole)—two different metaphors in one, referred to mixing metaphors, which is also a grammatical no-no.  And I provide a link to who was president when I began the blog in 2004:

s n a p p e r h e a d ’s totem pole capstone, which was begun in forty-three’s day

          The eighth line begins a new sentence, which jars the brain slightly, because line seven did not end in a period and this line did not begin with a capital letter (the intent is to force readers to engage level 2 thinking and read slower).
         
tomorrow waod poem’s intricate reflection collage silhouettes will be unburied 
 
          The ninth line proposes a distant-future presidency when people (myself, hopefully, included) will re-read this poem and wonder at the poet’s prescience (2028 or 2032).

while conducting future memory mining exercises during AOC’s presidency

          The tenth and eleventh lines, are thematically connected to previous ones (time-frames related to US presidential administrations), which might-be building toward a plot?  Maybe, possibly?  [Obviously this was written before-during Trump’s first impeachment, otherwise it would have been plural (impeachments).] 

which requires every one of us to live thru overwhelming/underwhelming

events during The Buffoon’s impeachment and then place their recall 
 
           The twelfth line alludes to the similarity between our human ability to recall memories and the Internet’s ability to recall items (like this poem) using keywords.  This line, again, ends in a preposition.

codes in squire where they may get dusty but never so unused as to 
 
          While the thirteenth line (and the fifteenth line) completes the prepositional phrase begun in the twelfth line (and the fourteenth line), the fourteenth line breaks that pattern by beginning with a preposition–both showing and telling the reader: one way to point out one’s awareness of man-made grammar rules is to intentionally bend them.  And, then, suggests a related idea: that morals are also man made.  

draw attention to bending the ground rules while recognizing they exist 
 
for the sole purpose of being broken morality may be completely inside of 
 
          After the dash in the middle of the fourteenth line, a statement begins (about where morality might be found), which then becomes the beginning of a question in the fifteenth line (about the woad poem artwork’s sexual imagery . . . considered immoral by puritans), there, the poem intentionally causes a mental hiccup.  The reader sees the question: would the artwork, but “hears” would the art work (as in: would the art succeed if it were less delicately prurient?)  My aim was to ask: would it accomplish the task of catching-and-holding the attention of viewers if my art was more blatant—and I provide a link to a NSFW example, for those who might be in need of what I mean by blatant.  Which is answered by the poet-artist-myself at the end of the sixteenth line. 

creative words generated by millions of imaginations but would this artwork if 
 
less delicately prurient or without its attention catch-hold — I suggest it would not 
 
          The seventeenth/final line is a call-back-bookend bringing the poem to a close by returning the POV back to first-person (begun in the second line).  It also intentionally causes another mental hiccup wherein the reader is "tricked" when assuming the end of the sixteenth line completed the rhetorical question (it posed to itself) and, then, realizing the answer has continued (into a different/unasked question).  And that answer explains that this poem, this art, is only important now to those who read it or look at it.  Which is my closing to say: thank you, to you, when you view.
 
          The art and the poem were—like every creation of all creators—immensely important to me, at-the-time, when I was creating them.  But, then my brain moved on.  To the next idea, the next instinct-driven concept, and it (my brain) uses the ideas that got stuck-plastered in place from the creating-sculpture-thoughts to inform my next thing.

be valued any less by me, its creator, who considers every view, by you, a tiny kiss

* Subject for another day’s essay.  “Most-people” are unable to be objective and always bring their personal agenda to a fair-use versus copyright debate.  I always try to give credit to creative people, even when all they do is screech “mine.mine.mine.”  (But I realize I do not have to pay my landlord with the proceeds of my creativity.)  I disdain people artists like Lars Ulrich and champion creatives like Aaron Swartz.  Which indicates where my personal agenda lies, and that I'm aware of my place in the phalanx of “most-people”.  
 
odder pins and flypaper ideas:
 

 

        GREYESCAPEXTRAIL

greyescapex



glint ⸱ tight diaphragm
squint bite tinker's damn
there's almost no escaping
 
  int shite good-goddamn
stint blight strife's a sham
⸱ where goest your agapē?
 
"skint" trite ⸱ faux victim
hint ⸱ spiteful dictum
⸱ ere prose an eyesore cliché
 
mince ⸱ fight ⸱ wham-n-scram
rinse ⸱ unite ⸱ worse plan
stare frozen-core aperture

 
slightly similar b&w art:
 
 
 

HEX - GON

          ‶They were just talking about the phrase: taking one's own council, so I told them all about that hex-gon concept.  I mentioned it to you—kinda brieflylast time, right?″

          ‶YahBut...Remind me...Is that hex gone, like in: 'we payed Witch Hulda to make her hex gone potion' or hexagon, as in: 'Gamey Greta moved her trivial pursuit token into the middle hexagon'?

          ‶Both.  Neither.  I must not've splaind it goodnuf.  Six letters: H E X space G O N.  Supposed to bring to mind both Witch Hulda's potion and Gamey Greta's final question.″

          ‶AaahOk...I remember there were six scales, but I don't remember the traits on em...Oh and...each of the six were scored from one to six...Umm, I'm wrong...They were scored A B C D E F and, depending on what letters you picked, you got a different result...reminded me of the Myers Briggs.″

          ‶The first trait is your benevolence - avarice scale.  What would your letter be?  You're making a face.  Izit cauzeya need help with a few examples?  Or—like Nancy Normalyou don't wanna gointa any details today?″

          ‶Passive aggressive much?″         

          ‶I'm sorry I said like Nancy Normal.  I shouldn't have been so pushy.″

          ‶IzzFine...I don't mind...But, I guess I could use help defining avarice and benevolence...and, maybe, sketch it out so I can remember this time.″

          ‶Here, I can use this napkin for a visual aid.  On this side is A to F from benevolence to avarice.  Benevolence is similar to being kind and charitable; while avarice is always seeking to profit, but in a mean way.
           You pick A if you've been—as an adultbenevolent to-a-fault; and F if you've been avaricious to-a-fault.  Pick B if you've tried to be benevolent when possible; pick E if you've tried to be avaricious when possible.  Or you pick C if you've more-often-than-not been benevolent; and D if you've more-often-than-not been avaricious.″

          ‶LemmeGeddisStraight...if default mode is either: way too much, mostly attempted, or occurred slightly more than half of the time...you're saying it's possible for a person to be too benevolent?..And...are you saying this isn't for children?″

          ‶Yes.  To both questions.  I don't know if this would be a valuable tool for insane sociopaths.  And children are all insane sociopaths.  An adult who is aware they routinely assist or attempts to help others, without any thought for their own welfare, could consider themself to be an 'A' on this first scale.
           Which leads us to the second trait: your candor - guile scale.  Candor is kinda like speaking honestly and being plainspoken; while guile is kinda like speaking with duplicity in a sly or cunning manner.″

          ‶OhIsee...with too much candor, people's feelings can get hurt by your blunt words; and too much guile people might suspect they're being lied to or deceived...neither's a way to win friends and influence enemies!″

          ‶Right.  Third trait: your amity - enmity scale.  Amity is behaving peacefully and harmoniously; and enmity is hostile, antagonistic behavior.″

          ‶Wow...I sure can't imagine anyone labeling themselves hostile-to-a-fault...But I know a few who seem to always be sullen or angry or they're tryin to pick a fight...Seems this scale would be better if it were scored by someone who could be objective...I think people will just lie about themselves.″

          ‶Although we're goin thru this together, Vernon, mostly this'd be done alone—like the Myers-Briggs.  This is a tool for introspection.  So people can evaluate their own character traits.  Identify which parts of themselves they need to learn to accept or work on changing (incredibly rare). 
           Which brings us to your fourth trait: the integrity - nefarious scale.  Integrity is comparable to one's adherence to ethical or honorable behavior; nefarious is comparable to one's flagrantly horrible or corrupt behavior.″

             ‶Whaa...you just mumble?..somethin like they'd either learn to accept themself or they'd work on fixing their...cranky hair.″

          ‶What I mumbled, Mister Cranky Hair, was incredibly rare.  Most people don't take intelligence tests to finally put a number on their below-averageness, then start crackin books, and then go back and measure their improvement.  Not sayin it never happens; just that it's rare.
              When you took the Myers-Briggs, did you find out you were judgemental and decide you wanted to be more perceptive?″         

          ‶Um...you think I'm judgemental and not very perceptive?″

          ‶The Myers-Briggs doesn't say that or work that way, butnow that I hear you say it out loudI did sound that way.  I apologize.  My guess would be: you determined that you were either an ESFJ or an ENFJ.  But that can change over time.  Depends on how long ago you took it.″

          ‶Ohyup...ESFJ...the way I remembered it was entertainment-sports-foot-joy.  What would be yours?..Not extravert...so your first letter is I for intravert.  What's the S or N stand for?..I forget.″

             ‶Sensing or Intuition.  When I first took it, I was an INTJ; the way I recall that is: intelligent-jerk.  But, most recently, I was INTP, sointelligent-prick?″

          ‶Haaa...So...this one's got six letters instead of four...you should name it...cuz...someone could be, like, an ABACAB...I'm pretty sure that there's a hole in there somewhere.″

          ‶Did you just quote a forty year old song, Vernon?  Wouldn't have thought you were old enough to be a Genesis fan!  But, now you've got me wondering: what would someone with an ABACAB on their Agenda Scale be like?  That's its name; the first letter of each of the traitson the E-F-G end of the scalespell out the word agenda.  It's a reference to our hidden agendas or having a personal agenda.″
  
          ‶Isee...So ABACAB would be too overly giving...mostly speaks plain...comes off as obnoxiously friendly...is slightly more honest than dishonest...and that brings us up to...″
 
            ‶The pragmatism - dogma scale is the fifth one.  Pragmatists think about practical applications and make decisions based on day-to-day thoughts, actions, and truths; adherents of dogma are very by-the-book, they don't question that book, and tend to scorn those that do question it.
             ABACAB is a gender neutral person who understands their overly pragmatic attitude towards everything, at all times, with everyone around them, tends to get them in more trouble than it avoids.  They're aware the term can't get out of their own way applies to them, and scores themself an 'A': too-pragmatic.

           ‶Okthen...And the last on the Agenda Scale?″

           ‶The sixth trait is the certainty - ambivalence scale.  Those who are certain possess a strength in their decisions or hold firm to their convictions; and those who are ambivalent are of-mixed-emotions, tend toward indecisiveness, and are aware of their dichotomous cognitive dissonance.
            ABACAB is mostly certain most of the time.  And that's the all of it.″
 
         ‶Allrightythen...I'ma take this napkin...Cuz I'm mostly certain that my agenda isn't at all like they/them...ABACAB's that is...I need to think about it...all though...pretty sure I don't have any A's or F's...Ha!..Just thought of another good one: an AC DC CD is a middle of the road dude who's only major fault is he keeps doing dirty deeds dirt cheap.″
 
          ‶Gotta hand it to ya there Vernon.  That's spot on fast thinkin, hilarious, and a song from the 1970s.  You sure you're not fifty years old?  All I ask is, please, keep me updated with new letter combinations which you might come up with, ok?″

          ‶Noprob...Thanks for this...the Agenda Scale...It's gonna give me shit to think about for days.″

related in some manner:

ambivalence

Ballyhoo How to: Nutrient Stew Containing the Awareness Part of You

 

          Mind health.  Consider spending twenty minutes to listen (watching not required) to a snack-sized synopsis on the foundational stoic philosophers: Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aureilus.  If something they wrote is perceived by the awareness part of you to be affirmatively beneficial?  Dive deeper at your own pace.
 

           Brain health.  Listen to ten minutes (watching still not required) of highlights which touch on the key elements required to improve your golova and maintain the nutrient stew of your body's operating system.  If something mentioned has been depleted or overlooked?  Replenish to improve, repair, and possibly extend your warranty.
 

  
 
 
additional brain-stuffings:

 
 
 
 
 

Beau of the Fifth Column

 

          There is a voice out there, coming from Florida, who talks clearly and intelligently about a wide range of things related to current events, progressive politics, survival, and common sense.  His name is Justin King.  His scripted, cogent, and rational videos are 96.5%-of-the-time exactly what I already thought or wanted-to-learn about any given issue (currently at a ratio of 38%-knew to 48.5%-learned).  His calming, food-for-thought uploads can be found on the Beau of the Fifth Column YouTube channel.  I highly recommend listening to him daily.
 
          It was suggested that I try creating videos of my written essays, by someone who dislikes reading my Dense and Difficult to Decipher Ancillary Diatribes (DaD2DAD).  Although my words might reach a larger audience, I'd need an alternative to my face because of my artists are observers adage.  So, until I get set-up, whyn't ya listen to Beau? (it's just a thought).

Socrates Taught Plato How to Turn Prehistory Into History

 

          Prehistory did not begin when our universe coalesced, when our galaxy began to rotate together, when gravity caused our star's fusion, or when oceans collected.  It also didn't begin when our moon began to spin overhead, when single-cellular life started, or even when complex life evolved.  Those events occurred billions of years ago.

          We humans easily understand the word year because we have personal reference points, which we can empirically measure.  (In the previous 365 days, the covid19 pandemic killed over 500,000 Americans and 2.5 million worldwide.)  Some of us might be able to think in terms of a hundred years, because we understand it's possible to live that long.  However, when we learn that over a century ago, the 1918 pandemic killed 50 million people, we begin to lose the related-to-me focus.  And when we read that more than five centuries ago, the bubonic plague killed maybe 200 million people?  We're mentally drifting without a point of personal reference.

          And that's only half of a millennium in the past!  The numbers: billion (a thousand million) and million (a thousand thousand) are completely non-relatable.  Our minds struggle to grasp-comprehend (or even imagine) what it means when we hear:

Prehistory began when millions of years ago, some of our stone-age, bipedal, hominid ancestors crafted tools, buried their dead, worked collectively in order to survive, and decided it would be valuable to start communicating with their future selves.  

          Those someones thought it would help to augment their memories.  And they started marking with chalk or soft stone or charcoal on flat surfaces; tieing knots in rope; cutting gouges in wood; making impressions in mud or clay; burning or dieing on hides; etcetera.  This lasted for hundreds of millennia.  Time ate all their chalkboards and etch-a-sketches; toys and utensils; caves and corpses, until a confluence of location, luck, and lack-of-liquid (ll&lol) made it possible for their distant descendants (us) to unearth a few of their grocery lists, calendars, and guidebooks.

          Try hopscotching forwardStone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, to the Ancient Historical Era.  Don't stop skipping until you reach the Modern Era:
  • The fossil record contains evidence anatomical homo sapiens existed at least 250,000 years ago.
  • Cave painting and art has been found which has been dated to more than 45,000 years ago.
  • Earth's magnetic poles reverse (then reverse back 800 years later) about 42,000 years ago. 
  • Sculptures and jewelry have been carbon dated to more than 35,000 years ago.
  • Standing stones and stone structures date to more than 10,000 years ago.
  • Cuneiform writing (indentations in clay) date from 5,000 years ago (Bronze Age, starts in areas).
  • Egyptian pyramids and hieroglyphs date from 4,500 years ago (Ancient Historical Era starts in areas).
  • Stonehenge stones date from about 4,400 years ago.
  • Gilgamesh epic poems (Sumeria) on stone/clay tablets from 4,000 years ago.
  • Chinese logosyllabic writing dates from 3,500 years ago.
  • Hindu texts began to be written/edited about 3,500 years ago (Iron Age, starts in areas).
  • Pueblo dwellings and cliff houses date from 3,200 years ago (Stone Age mostly ends).
  • Hebrew bible began to be written/edited about 2,800 years ago (Bronze Age mostly ends).
  • Nazca lines (Peru) date from 2,500 years ago.
  • Philosopher Confucius of Zou (China) reportedly lived 2,500 years ago. 
  • Philosopher Buddha of Lumbini (Nepal) reportedly lived 2,500 years ago.
  • Philosopher Socrates of Athens (Greece) reportedly lived 2,400 years ago. 
  • Philosopher Zhuang of Dao (China) began to be written/edited 2,400 years ago.
  • Philosopher Epicurus of Samos (Greece) reportedly lived 2,300 years ago.
  • Sandstone city of Petra (Jordan) begun carving in stone cliffs 2,000 years ago.
  • Philosopher-statesman Seneca of Cordoba (Spain) reportedly lived 1,950 years ago.
  • Philosopher-slave Epictetus of Hierapolis (Turkey) reportedly lived 1,950 years ago.
  • Philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius of Rome (Italy) reportedly lived 1,900 years ago.
  • Christian bible began to be written/edited about 1,800 years ago.
  • Roman empire began to shrink/collapse about 1,500 years ago (Modern Era begins in areas).
  • Muslim quran began to be written/edited about 1,400 years ago (Iron Age mostly ends).
Animated map of the Roman Republic and Empire
Rise & fall of the Roman Empire

          Spend a few cups of coffee perusing theo-philosophic writings in a down-the-rabbit-hole manner and your wanderings will bring you to the Documentation Vanishing Point.  Albeit "vanishing" is only accurate if describing the historical record as if looking back at it and "point" erroneously implies a single point in time exists between history (from written records, which still survive today) and prehistory (before written records were made or have survived). 
 
          One of the more famous examples of prehistory becoming history—at the very beginning edge of durable communication—is the Greek philosopher Socrates, who allegedly was born about -470 and died about 71 years later.
 
          Why allegedly?  Because if he was a real person—and not just an archetype, invented by others—no words written by him and no books of his have survived (which Socrates might have paid to be stamped onto papyrus).  After his death by execution in -399, for the crimes of irreverent disrespect of the State's Gods and for preaching his brand of atheism to other citizens, (citizenship was restricted to Athenian males of the property-owner/slave-owner class) Socrates was either a central character or mentioned in dozens of plays, books, and written 'conversations' (and is still written about today).
 
          If Socrates was merely an author-surrogate character, created by Plato (and used by others like Aristotle, Et al.) to permit writing/talking about things which would otherwise be illegal, documenting "Socrates's Philosophy" shielded authors from punishment.  If Socrates was a flesh-and-blood man, he never wrote anything down (the latter is what all surviving documents tell us is the truth.) 

          In my opinion, Socrates was not actually a man who lived in the -5 century.  He was too perfect of a caricature and is credited with too many well-thought-out philosophies (as would any character be, who's an amalgam-pilation of several philosopher-authors imaginations).

  • His mother was a midwife and his father a stonemason.  As an adult, Socrates referrs to himself as a midwife (helping 'birth new ideas' by asking 'what is it?') and he builds/constructs theories using dialectic Q&A's and logical arguments.  This is just one example of many contrived coincidences.
  • He was uniquely ugly, odd, and dressed without care (bulging & askew eyes; a pig nose; short and fat; unkempt/disheveled dress).  Staged-contrast: overt visual flaws while speaking flawlessly.
  • He "exploded into existence" on the pages of many playwrights/authors, but only after his death.
  • His publicly ordered execution was, in actuality, a calmly accepted suicide (he could have chosen exile, but didn't).  He willingly carried out his suicide by drinking hemlock tea.  What a hero!  What a soliloquy!
  • Hemlock poison paralyzes the diaphragm and respiratory system.  Plato's description of Socrates's death (itself, told from a fictional character's POV) details a growing numbness beginning in his feet and traveling up his body, eventually killing Socrates when it reached his heart.  Someone bitten by a cobra might die in this manner.  Do we need any more evidence Plato's faux description was fabricated?

          I suspectif Socrates was a real personhe was not at all the figurehead and intellectual powerhouse depicted in "his student's" books.  But, since Plato's and Aristotle's (Et al.) words survived, they are considered to be the first to quote what they heard "prehistory say".  I think they were creative nonfiction writers (like all successful theo-philosophical authors/editors must become, to reach and hold an audience).

          ... Socrates showed displeasure with those who thought him to be poor by stating: 'One can be rich, even with very little, on the condition that one has limited his needs.  Wealth is just the excess of what one has, over what one requires.' ...  Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, circa 360 (700+ years after Socrates "died")

more like this:

Nietzsche

Stoicism

black cat analogy

Redux: "I Cecil You, Too" (First Fortnight in February)



          I have never celebrated the fake holiday in mid-February.  It's a scam holiday which businesses use to sell cards, flowers, candy, and all that foolish shit.  I give gifts or messages of love whenever the time feels right, not when someone's calendar says I'm supposed to.

          Anyway—what the fuck is this thing we all have labelled with the word: LOVE?  I know what mix of emotions I feel/have felt for those I've loved and do love (not a very large list) but it's amazingly hard to explain how certain fluctuations in my brain's chemicals affect my heart/brain/gut/libido and even harder to understand/compare when others explain their "feelings of love".  We just assume everyone must be feeling the same way we feel when we use the same words they use.

          "See that color?  That is what I have labelled: Red."
          "Oh, that's red?  Ok, I'll begin to refer to everything which is colored that way: red.  Umm, what about when I feel all these crazy feelings at the same time?  I need a label, so that when I am feeling all these feelings I do not need to explain each of them every time."
          "That is labelled:  Love."
          "What about all those same feelings, except one:  I don't want to be physically intimate?"
          "Still labelled: Love.  You could add the word Platonic, but that'll require an explanation because that word has different interpretations."
          "What about when I feel all those feelings for my pet?"
          "When I say, I love my cat, Cecil, I think I must be misusing the word 'love'.  Instead, I should-maybe find a word which is a compound for the meanings of the words: pride, enjoyment, happiness and admiration."

          I'm proud of Cecil's training and I enjoy his 'loving' attention; he never makes me angry (mostly because he can't communicate with words, has no malice, and enjoys my company); and I admire him for his actions, looks, demeanor, and thoughtfulness (Is he being thoughtful? Am I just anthropomorphizing?).  Maybe I should consider his name, Cecil, to be a label for what I feel about him—so when I say: "I Cecil you," I'm currently feeling a combination of pride/enjoyment/happiness/admiration for you.

          When I receive an "I love you" I—almost never—respond with an "I love you too". 

          It's wrong to treat an I love you as if it requires a mandatory reply.  It is not supposed to be interpreted as if it were the question: Do you love me?  Also, it should not become a replacement phrase for goodbye.  When people do that, they cause their incessant I love you's to lose their value.  Eventually, it becomes a throw-away line.  If said all the time, what do they say when they really want someone to know they have caused a rush of complicated emotions which are identified (when felt all at the same time) as the feeling of love?  

Recap:  "I Love You"—all three words—are reserved for when the emotion of love is actually being felt.  I do not want my I love you to cause an immediate response of I love you too.  I prefer either no reply or a response like: "those words make me feel good," or "Thank you," or "I like it when you tell me that," or "those words make me happy," or "when you say that, I get warm inside".  It is better that the person you love smiles and says nothing, and some time in the future, if they tell me they are currently feeling the emotion they call love—for me—I know they're feeling love at that moment and I can decide to reply with my present feelings, or not to reply.  I appreciate their statement of love when they are feeling it and then I consider what I did to make them feel that way.  This is my normal.

          When she was young, I tried to encourage my daughter, Denise, to understand and to communicate her feelings of love.  It was a long and complicated issue.  I found talking about my thoughts to her and her mother, on expressing family love, difficult.  I felt there was a lack of love in our family and wanted us to tell each other that we loved each other more often (it worked occasionally).  I also wanted us to communicate our love by kissing (which never caught on).  The compromise I got from my daughter was cheek-bumps.  I failed at explaining to her that bumping cheeks was how people communicated respect to either: an old and feeble relative; someone who was contagious; or (in France and Belgium) because that was their custom.

          Denise now says I love you to each of her children many times a day.  Each of her kids reply with a I love you too.  I see and hear their devotion and their respect.  With them, it does not seem to be a "worn out phrase" or a "throw away line".  In fact, when a child is upset (and, intentionally, does not reply to their mother's I love you) they—routinely—apologize (later) and remind her that they love her.

          I am now an old distant relative with whom respectful cheek bumps may be apropos.  And, now, I am adjusting to her normal.  Now, I reply to her I love you with an I love you, too.
 
 
mor e lov e motion:
 
 

 

Flags of Hate

 


Hundred racist flags & vile banners waved proudly
That first Wednesday of the fortyfifth's last month
 
Hateful MAGAs built gallows n then prayed loudly
With thirst for foul-play, 'forthwith' incited Trump
 
Gatecrash, helm bash, Sicknick dead - sky cloudy
Baton burst bearspray election myth power drunk

'Patriot' riot whyn't coup badge of dishonor dowdy
Perverse as Q's savethechildren toxic waste dump

Impeach twice (2mil pardon-price?) '24 vowed he
US worst curse: fortyseventh President Heffalump



     hundred racist flags:  echoing 'hundred acre wood' from A.A. Milne's Winnie The Pooh.
     6 Jan 2021:  The first Wed of the 45th President of the US (Trump's) last month in office.
     MAGAs:  Make America Great Again's; a label for Trump supporters, based on his red hat.
     forthwith:  Immediately, together with; Trump claimed he would "walk with" the crowd to the US Capitol.
     Sicknick:  US Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the crowd on Jan 6th.
     election myth:  For months (with no evidence) Trump promoted the 'big lie' that the Nov 3rd election was fraudulent.
     power drunk:  Trump, his administration, followers, and the crowd who attacked the Capitol.
     patriot:  someone showing support for their country (prior to Jan 6th).  Now, a racist-inssurectionist label.
     riot whyn't coup:  echoing red white and blue; whyn't (dialectic why don't, from Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men). 
     badge of dishonor:  opposite of badge of honor (the label 'patriot' is now stained by association).
     dowdy:  unfashionable, out-dated.
     Q's savethechildren:  Q-Anon hijacked the legitimate century-old organization for nefarious deceitful purposes.
     Impeach twice:  Trump's second impeachment was caused by his orchestration of the Jan 6th events.
     2mil pardon price:  Trump's personal lawyer was reportedly selling/attempting to sell Trump pardons.
     '24 vowed he:  Unless Trump is found guilty by the US Senate, he has vowed a run for president in 2024.
     47th President:  If Trump is re-elected in 2024, he will become both the 45th and the 47th President.
     Heffalump:  A.A. Milne's Winnie The Pooh imaginary nightmare-elephants who cause chaos.


more on racists:
 

"That's not who we are" — is what it is.

 
          I always cringe when a mature, educated, adult allows the phrase 'it is what it is' to fall out of their brain.  Those five succinct words, in that order, jangle-pucker my opinion-of-you muscle like a sharp kick in the gooch.  Some part of me refuses to stop thinking about, mentally investigates, attempts to further identify, and wants to maybe-hopefully come up with a better answer—to everything.  So, when someone idiomatically declares 'it is whut it is'?  I smell a putrefactive-proclamation!  They sound like they're saying: all is futile; any further thought or discussion by anyone (which includes me) is a fuckin waste of time; case closed.
 
          Which causes me to want to dig it up and determine why they want it buried.  This fantastic article details the 2007 ubiquitous use of the phrase as witnessed by a US Army commander in Iraq.

          When I hear i.i.w.i.i. my grey-matter gavels loudly on my sensibility's sounding block and I have difficulty repressing the urge to say: "I hate that phrase" or "I disagree" or (if I'm feeling kind) "I'm always confused by that statement."  The new after Jan 6th me will no longer repress that urge and I will tell you to your face that I hate that fatalistic sentence.
 
          The equivalent idiom du jour: 'that is not who we are' has been ubiquitously uttered by President Biden, dozens of talking heads (from every political party and media outlet), as well as personal friends and neighbors.
 
          Stop saying: "that's not who we are"!  When you say it, you sound like you're either a coward with your head buried in the sand, an idiot who denies reality, or both.
 
          Use of the "editorial we" or "royal we" is a nosism [say: Nose-is-um].  During the culmination of the Trump presidency's 'final boss battle' on Jan 6th (the echoes of insurrectionist's chants may still be pinging and punching around inside our befuddled brainpans today) the racism, bigotry, prejudice, and in-your-face hatred of millions of white-Republican men and women was proudly on display.
 
          That Is Who We All Are - As A Nation.  Depending on your daily statements and actions, you may be able to say, "that behavior is not representative of who I, as an individual, am."  (From now on, I will require you to prove it.  I intend to ask everyone their opinions.  Fair warning!  Be prepared to defend your statements.)  Because, clearly, WE as a country are a collection of hypocritical, terrible, racist, fucktards.
 
          It is who we were before the civil war a century and a half ago.
 
          It is who we were during the civil rights movement 60 years ago. 
 
          It is who we were when the Black Lives Matter movement began in 2013 when the murderers of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Eric Garner (ad infinitum up to today) were acquitted or not indited. 
 
          It is who we were last month when thousands of hypocrites waved hundreds of flags, like: blue-lives-matter (as they struck and killed Capitol Police officers); Q-Anon (as they chanted 'kill Mike Pence'); as well as the confederate battle flag and flags of the NAZI party (as they chanted U.S.A, USA).  

          Our hatred is not buried.  It's constantly out in the open for all to see.  Watch this video and learn why when you say 'it is not who we are' that you're obviously lying to yourself:



          Are you now thinking: 'that is not my community'?  You're fooling yourself.  The vocal few are always surrounded by the silent majority in that city and in every city.  For every person who rolled down their window to shout, hundreds more drove by keeping their mouth shut while they were thinking the same thoughts (which Ms Gorman's poem artfully refers to as: 'quiet isn't always peace').
 
          The vocal few took planes, buses, trains, and pickup-trucks (chock-a-block full of a cacophony of flags) to DC on Jan 6ththe silent millions voted for Trump twice, they still think the same racist thoughts, today and they'll vote for him a third time in four years.
 
more american-isms:


 

Death Decade (2020-2030)

 
          President Biden said two weeks ago, during his incredibly boring inaugural address (which hammered hollowly about the need for the country to do something he called 'unity' without even the slightest hint of an emotional tone): "we must reject a culture in which facts themselves are manipulated and even manufactured."
 
          Facts:  
 
February 2020:  The WHO recognized Covid19 as a global pandemic.  Most countries (with competently functioning CDCs) readily agreed.  The virus had been identified several months earlier (late 2019 in China) and labeled: 2019 novel coronavirus disease.  World Death Toll (WDT) estimated between 1,000 and 200,000 (huge discrepancies due to Chinese government intentionally down-playing and under-reporting as well as health officials in other countries being unaware Covid19 already existed in their countries). US Death Toll (USDT) between 25 and 200 (discrepancies due to local health officials unawareness). 
 
November 2020:  Several international pharmaceutical companies begin to request and receive government approval(s) to release a variety of different messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) injection-based drugs, which they claim will provide "protection from serious illness and death from Covid19".  All of these drugs are discussed, on all forms of media, using the term: "vaccine".  WDT between 1,500,000 and 2 million; USDT between 250,000 and 300,000.
          Definitions and examples:
 
          The commonly understood definition for vaccine is: "...a drug which provides an active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease..."  The vaccine for the measles virus is normally administered to very young children with a second booster shot administered a few years later.  These two immunizations provide a lifetime immunity to the measles virus (with rare exceptions).
 
          The commonly understood definition for inoculation is: "...the introduction of a pathogen or antigen into a living organism to stimulate the production of antibodies..."  Because variants of the influenza virus constantly change, "seasonal flu shot inoculations" are required.  To retain life-long, year-round, flu virus immunity, new inoculations are required every year.  Pharmaceutical companies test/produce new flu shots every 6 months so as to combat the constant new variants of the flu virus.
January 2021:  Governments began to release millions of mRNA inoculations, which stimulate the production of antibodies to "teach the body's immune system" to identify the 'spike proteins' on the surface of the Covid19 virus.  WDT between 2.1 and 2.75 million; USDT between 425,000 and half-million.
 
Manipulation of facts, currently causing confusion:
 
          There are thousands of articles, videos, and news items—on every form of media—with the words "Covid vaccine" wrongfully conjoined and/or mistakenly associated with the words "eliminating the virus" or "reducing the spread" or "acquiring herd immunity, individual immunity, or global immunity".
 
          Because Covid19 inoculations do not prevent infection by the Covid19 virus, no pharmaceutical company has made any claim that their drug will do so.  The only claims, made by any of the drug companies (or the clinical trials testing their efficacy) are that these inoculations reduce serious symptoms and eliminate deaths between 60 and 95 percent of the time (with an effective boost in spike-protein antibodies lasting between 6 weeks and 6 months, depending on the drug, the individual, booster shots, and many other variables).
        
February 2021:  The new US federal administration is attempting to fix the US CDC and NIH responses (hampered, nonexistent, or broken by the previous administration) to the Covid19 pandemic.  These inoculations/booster shots designed to drastically reduce serious hospitalizations and deaths are optimistically projected to be available to all US citizens "hopefully by summer".  WDT between 2.5 and 3 million; USDT between 450,000 and 600,000 (previous US under-counts now being "found" and belatedly reported). 

          I can find no reporting, discussion, or any research being conducted on a vaccine which imparts lifelong immunity.

          Are you—dear citizen of Earth—calmly satisfied with the facts (or even aware of them)?  Do you understand everyone needs to wear masks, social distance, receive booster inoculations about every 6 months, and will STILL BECOME INFECTED, ASYMPTOMATICALLY CONTAGIOUS AND STILL COULD INFECT OTHERS ??  Do you realize that, until a lifelong-immunity vaccine is found, everyone will be gambling on not becoming part of the 5 to 40 percent?  Can your brain understand this new paradigm?  That you'll forever be contributing to the serious illness or death of those who either do not understand these facts or who foolishly choose to not be inoculated?

          As pharmaceutical companies rake in tens of trillions from the world's governments over the coming decade, and WDT/USDT shrinks but never, ever, goes away, I will get inoculated (as soon as it's my turn).  And I recommend every-one-of-you do the same.  But.  Covid is here to stay.  The decade 2020 to 2030 is, unfortunately, going to be the Death Decade.

rants, comix, poems, warnings: