s n a p p e r h e a d

GREYESCAPEXTRAIL

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:

gameboard

memory tool

woad poem

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 briefly—last 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 Normal—you 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 adult—benevolent 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, but—now that I hear you say it out loud—I 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, so—intelligent-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 traits—on the E-F-G end of the scale—spell 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:

un-selfaware

opposite behavior

ambivalence

contemplation

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:

from whence the hand-octopus-rat came

costumes and taxpayer dollars

philosophy club rules

death and taxes

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 forward—Stone 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).

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 suspect—if Socrates was a real person—he 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")