The Podcast of Our Generation

I have just finished re-listening to what will probably go down as the defining podcast of our generation: the show down between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein about Sam's controversial podcast with Charles Murray.

Although I am a fan of both and listen to nearly every podcast that pops up on their respective podcast feeds, I want to make it clear that I listened to this particular podcast on Sam's feed.

I'm sure many listeners were disappointed with what turned out to be a stillborn debate that didn't really make it past the opening gates of discussion, but I was fucking riveted from start to finish.

What was most interesting to me was Ezra's refusal to separately consider the scientific study an individual has carried out (that is by now commonly accepted in mainstream science) from their social policy views.

Ezra believes the two sides are interminably connected to one another and cannot be separated.

It was this fundamental difference in thinking that prevented a deeper discussion with Sam from unfolding. It should be noted that Sam, like Ezra, stated multiple times he is not in agreement with Charles on his social policies.

That said, Sam repeatedly pleaded with Ezra to get him to see that the scientific issue and the social issue at hand should be discussed as two entirely distinct, separate matters.

Sam was doing so because it's the only way one can hope to have a rational, dispassionate debate of the facts at hand without having worry about running into the wall of your interlocutor's personal politics regarding a particular social matter.

This reminds me of the furor that erupts whenever anyone broaches the name or thoughts of Martin Heidegger.

As with Murray, most seem to accept that Heidegger's private, personal views (as well as his membership, however short and tenuous, with the Nazi party) have fundamentally polluted the man's entire philosophical thought and writing and therefore believe that the latter should be shunned and avoided and anyone who says otherwise is at best a Nazi sympathizer.

The ability to see that two thoughts aren't one and the same and to deal with each as such - this is the defining trait of a thinker. Unfortunately, there was only one person truly thinking in this podcast.

The Autonomy & Dao of the Korean People

No other book in my life has come close to having as large an impact on both my personal growth and my intellectual development as this book has.

Its title is "The Autonomy & Dao of the Korean People."

I came across it serendipitously as I was browsing a random Korean bookstore just as I was beginning my university studies in Korea.

This book has given me so much. Not only did it help me gain a firm understanding of Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism (better than any English-language material I've ever come across) that worked a type of therapy on the way I view life, but it introduced me - via footnotes - to the two other major intellectual influences in my life: Lewis Mumford and Martin Heidegger.

I have read and re-read this book so many times that the original binding fell apart. Luckily I took it to a local copy store that re-bound it for me. It is full of my marginalia, notes and underlines.

It is my treasure.

Unfortunately, this book has been out of print for years now, and most Koreans aren't even able to read it anyways because of all of the Chinese characters in it. Of course there is no translation available, but I have translated a few passages throughout the years on this blog that may be of interest to some.

Check out those writings via this link, and I recommend you start with 'Dao and Study'.

Adaptive Versus Creative Powers

Below I will end the year and leave you dear reader with one important question.  While you and I are surely on the train of the digital re-cognizing of life and the world - to use the word 'revolution' to describe what is happening is to not clearly see the possibility cresting over the horizon - many, many others are most definately not.  But, unlike the past two major ages (i.e. the colonial and industrial ages) those most at risk to be "left behind" reside in the "advanced nations" and not those parts of the world that are fiscally disadvantaged (imho).  So, is this really a problem? Or, simply Karma?  Anyways, happy new years everybody!

The problem of valuing adaptive qualities/powers of an individual higher than creative powers.

The increase in the degree of information threatens the loss of identity of people today (contrary to the belief that it is strengthening social reason).  Those who feel independent and helpless in the face of technically mediated forms are more likely to become incapable of establishing an identity.

Adaptive power refers to the ability to become a specialist or expert and thus at the same time a functionary.  Functionaries by their very nature must be completely concentrated upon the administration of their function (e.g. scientific, technical, economic, monetary processes, administration and politics).  Smooth funtioning of the apparatus is the ultimate aim of inserting an expert.

The problem: As ever fewer persons are making the important decisions and ever more are manning the apparatus, modern society is thus oppressed by imminent structural pressures.  This in turn leads to the degeneration of practice into technique and - through no fault of the experts themselves - to a decline into social irrationality.
It would be propitious at this juncture to emphasize the gravity of this last sentence - and to ultimately show that every word was thoughtfully chosen - by providing the meaning of 'practice' as defined by Heraclitus and re-cognized in the modern word by Gadamer: Practice is carrying and conducting oneself in solidarity; solidarity of course being the basis and foundation of social reason.

Semantic Satiation

The cross-roads of epistimeological history lay not in the re-thinking of every-thing - a particularly blockheaded Brockman-esque thought - but in what may very well be considered the ultimate bellicose act conceivable; the forgetting of everything to namelessness.

Cherry Blossoms

Cherry Blossoms seem to engender a near mythical appreciation.  They are the definitive message bearer to the masses that the long, hard Winter has fallen to the sudden, surprise, early thrust spear of Spring.  The blossoms themselves will lead any casual observer to those memories - or fantasies for those as-yet-uninitiated - of youth when one first becomes aware of the opposite sexes surfeit of supple, unblemished smoothness.  This in turn is also, apart from being the place of their actual origin, probably what leads many to associate the blossoms with Japan and its culture.

That said, many other countries as well, including South Korea and the United States, have unofficial periods wherein the blooming of these trees is announced, celebrated and enjoyed by its citizenry.  These celebrations are more natural in that they are informal and lacking governmental or organizational auspices - which is to say that they do not take place within a conspicuous human enframing.  It is nature itself that calls to man as it were, to come hither to catch a glimpse of perfection, which if the blossom itself is any indication only occurs in youth.  Those so lucky to actually witness that moment, and it really is The Moment when the blossoms are in full bloom - and by full bloom I am not talking about the early, awkward stages of blooming when their skinny, pointed limbs are all too clearly visible and I am especially not talking about the later stage when the ugly, green leaves, the body hair if you will, poke through the perfect skin of blossoms that just form a complete, seemingly impenetrable orb of angelic whiteness around those awkward limbs - is to be bestowed with and at the same time burdened by Truth.  And it is probably for this reason why many will simply pay it no mind and miss it altogether.

We lateborn, unfortunately, are no longer able to readily receive Truth let alone begin to comprehend it.  Just try asking yourself what you believe Truth is or means.  A few mental stuttering starts heading nowhere, probably followed by an anecdote of modern usage that goes something like the following: truth is something agreed upon, ideally based on fact, and that upon hearing or reading usually elicits a "Yeah, (I think) that is true" or something to that effect.  Or maybe those of you who hail from institutions with latinate mottos (full disclosure: the motto of my alma mater, Korea University, is 'Libertas, Justitia, Veritas') will pay heed to the fact that Truth as spoken today in most romantic languages at least, derives from the Latin 'Veritas'.  (The etymological origins of 'truth' as spoken in English, it should be noted, shares a closer affinity than we would like to admit with 'faith' and even 'loyalty', which is food enough for thought itself).  That said, I don't know of anyone who actually knows let alone can indicate how exactly Veritas was thought of when it was still part of a living vernacular.  

Veritas was not an original, thoughtful construct in Roman times, however, it was the translation of the Greek 'Aletheia' into Roman thought and as a result this thoughtful Greek Word has been brought into our modern language in an equally violent manner being called 'Truth'.  To put it simply, the Greek word speaks of an "unconcealedness" or literally "the state of not being hidden". Moving fore, treading closer to the danger, and not for the mere purpose of highlighting etymological similarities, although such similarities cannot be said to not exist, I would like to briefly touch upon 眞理 or Zhenli or 진리.  There are probably many ways to think through this word, or set of characters, and the argument could probably be made as to whether one should even try to think through the couplet or instead focus on one character at a time or even if such an attempt should be made at all!

Shall we not at least try to take a leap, perhaps even a leap of faith towards what may be true? A good place to start along a way to thinking, generally, is through the thoughts of an actual thinker.  Regarding '眞', Zhuangzi (莊子) has already thought this character through as meaning 'Every-thing as it is' or '있는 그대로' in Korean.  The second character, a compound of the radicals 玉 + 里, that when taken in isolation respectively indicate a precious gem and a village.  Together, nowadays, when combined the resulting '理 ' is translated as either 'control' or 'logic', but these translations, especially the former, are ex post facto derivations.  Derived from what? In both cases, the original gem and village denote the 'explicit implicitness' or the concealed nature of both objects.  In the case of a precious gem, actually what is emphasized and always apparent first is the rough stone with the gem itself being unseen and only revealed later. A village is always only a village, and an area only comes to be called a village by virtue of the inhabitants that often exist in obscurity, or concealedness therein. So to be clear, the aspect of control that the above character has come to embody happened after, and only after the rough exerior of the gem or the nameless inhabitants of a village were forgotten in the sense that it became so simple to control the attaining of the gem itself or the groups of contained people.  

The above attempt at beginning to think through '眞理', which now that it is safe to say is an approximation of Truth in both Chinese, Japanese and Korean, was given solely as food for thought. In this moment the matter at hand, however, is Cherry Blossoms.  Cherry Blossoms, as mentioned at the outset, tend to evoke associations of Japan and its culture.  As a matter of fact, the Japanese have for centuries made it a practice to picnic or sojourn under blooming Cherry Blossoms.  In their traditional poetry, Cherry Blossoms were expressed reverentially by the single character denoting all flowers '花' for more than a millennia and some centuries.  Why? Well, I guess, since '花' is composed of '艹' a radical simply demarcating something as a plant and '化' symbolizing man becoming man from man, then the Japanese must therefore have had an original, intimate experience wherein the Cherry Blossoms, and particularly Cherry Blossoms in full bloom came to represent not just plants that become unconcealed from out of the concealement that exists and is protected within plants which they in turn again appear within, but also that opening into what is concealed in man that allows man to become unconcealed as such.  Or were you asking why Japanese picnicked beneath Cherry Blossoms in full bloom? Or did I answer that question too?

Unconcealedness needs concealedness.  What is concealed is therefore no less true than what is unconcealed.  The long, hard Winter that is now forgotten, out of sight and mind, has allowed the Beauty of Unconcealment to shine forth in full bloom by concealing itself.  Does the poetry of the Japanese mean as much when they employ '花' to represent Cherry Blossoms?  Who can say?  Some light may befall our blind struggles fore if we remember poetry has always been Song. Laudes is the Latin name for songs.  Laudare is a eulogy or praise.  Maybe the ancient Greek myths were just long poems that were singing, praising, eulogizing, remembering what has been and thus what could be again and Japanese Poems are myths along the Same vein.  If so, and even if not, I like to think of Cherry Blossoms as our Myth of Life, a life that may oft be forgotten, but will always be remembered, if not knowingly.

P.S. The Japanese call and know 'word' as 言葉 or petal(s) of saying...

Kanye Heidegger

"Everything in the world is exactly the Same."

"The ἐνέργεια which Aristoltle thinks as the fundamental character of presencing, of ἐόν, the ἰδέα which Plato thinks as the fundamental character of presencing, the Λόγος which Heraclitus thinks as the fundamental character of presencing, the Μοῖρα which Parmenides thinks as the fundamental character of presencing, the Χρεών which Anaximander thinks is essential in presencing - all these name the Same.  In the concealed richness of the Same the unity of the unifying One, the Ἒν, is thought by each thinker in his own way."

These quotes are from two thinkers from different continents seperated by two generations, both world wars, the Atlantic Ocean and common conception.  I don't know why, but no one has yet thought through the Same vein of thought these two titans of truth thrived in and thrive in, respectively.

The first quote was originally laid down in speech; as all teachers have done throughout the ages.  As  a saying then, the onus is upon us as listeners to hear what is said.  But, do we hear properly? Do we even know what proper hearing is?  Heidegger said proper hearing is paying thoughtful attention to simple things catching what is essential.

Unlike the time of Heraclitus - which is to say past times - the present remains for a time in popular memory until it is forgotten.  Therefore the context of the first quote, having appeared a few days prior on Late Night with Seth Meyers, is still fresh.  The quote is a response by the polymath musician/designer/citizen-of-the-world Kanye West to a question that went as follows: "What's the difference between how you approach fashion and how you approach music?" The response was given with unexpected stern seriousness and focus.  It didn't seem to answer the question and was casually laughed off.  Thus it's initial classification as a response must be revoked according to mass consensus (democratic opinion?) and so it becomes an orphan clause: a fragment.

For many ancient thinkers too what is left of their sayings more often than not take the form of fragments.*   As fragments they necessitate closer listening to what they say.  Upon closer listening to what Heraclitus says in his famous fragment concerning Λόγος Heidegger hears this: ὁμολογεῐν σοφόν ἐστιν Ἓν Πάντα, "the fateful comes to pass insofar as One All."  What is to be thought here is Ἓν Πάντα': One: All, All: One.  Likewise we must consider what Kanye himself says in his fragment.  "Everything is the Same." Is this not even more proper for what is thought here, and it's nature as a fragment?

There is something dangerously simple about this saying.  Dangerous in the sense that it may lead others to believe the speaker is seeking to re-present a universal formula and/or make him seem crazy; which he is not.  Rather, this Heraclitean saying conceals this thinker's first steps which initiated all of the following steps in the fateful course of his thinking.

"Everything is the Same" lets things stand together which usually are not thought of belonging together - which is to say things that are separated from one another - such as the sun and moon, light and dark, sobriety and intoxication, evil and the good, Heidegger and Kanye.  But how can such opposites, separated by that seemingly insurmountable distance between presence and absence, come to stand together?  The answer: through the Sameness that pervades or runs through All.

As everyone today seems all too ready to admit - whether prompted or not - Kanye is no teacher, let us accept this.   Instead let us see him then as a thinker.  As such he only gives us to think.  That is his gift to us.  As the Giver, he has no need for whatever bounds we try to keep him within, for he has transcended them already.  We, on the other hand, are not only behind him, but we still have no idea how to be thankful to him and by association to all thinkers past, present and soon to be.   

Reference:

ἐνέργεια - energia
ἐόν - eόn
ἰδέα - idea
Λόγος - Lόgos
Μοῖρα - Moera
Χρεών - Chreôn
Ἒν - En

* This does not mean to imply that their remaining as fragments is due to the fact that the context surrounding them was completely superfluous as well, not by a long shot. 

Welcoming Solitude

What is most certain in our time? To my mind it is the "Always heading forward." The "where to" is not determined - not by a longshot - but, set in it's fixedness; that is the Certainty.

In such a time what thought is most radical? Is it not the unthought - that which is not thought? Namelessness. Silence. Not silence for something; rather silence awaiting silence. Silence that is ready for silence.

Wind & Words

You and I, we are trees.

Whilst wind upon leaves
rustles our senses, we understand not.

Language be mere wind upon words towards Thought.

Namelessness

We were always here, until we were not.
Now, we are not here; just then.
The heaven heavens magenta magentas;
no longer, now just passing away .

Human Experiences As Experiential Humans

People just don't know. People are either afraid of or have no fear of what they don't know. Case in point: weed. Many are vehemently opposed to it whilst the rest are either users puffing away with no fear or are one of those who don't or no longer smoke, but are still nonetheless taking the idea of weed lightly; read without fear (of it's weight: importance).  

So what does 'knowing' look like? To tread upon a closely related, but slightly more enlightened path let's take the well known subject of wine up. Wine is not just a substance; it is far more. How much more? To avoid a long diatribe, I simply ask of you to think upon what man has come to know of wine. A lot. Next I pose this simple question, "Of what we 'know' in regards to what wine is, is wine limited to that knowledge, is it merely something that can have certain attributes listed, varietals evaluated, etc...?". Surely not, it is something to be experienced, fully. Experience means eundo assequi, to obtain something along the way, to attain something by going on a way. 

So what is reached by the individual who undergoes an experience with wine? Not mere knowledge. Granted. Obtained is a relation of oneself to wine's manifold essence. A relation should not be confused with a mere standing in front of a thing, although that is the essence of what an idea is, but a relation in the sense that what is experienced cannot occur or come to light the same if one aspect were different. Thus we can say that each experience is fundamentally different, in an essentially inseparable subjective and objective sense.  

From such an experience we have in our mind, and moreover we have impressed upon our senses (not in the sense of possessing a mere object) an idea of what wine then is. Idea, eidos in the Greek, in the sense that what remains can only remain from the originary experience; it is that experience always and forever more. 

But, it may rightfully be objected, others can say that they too, even without physically experiencing something, say ganja, and can still have an idea about something. Surely. Can one argue against them? If all they mean to say is that they have the ability to sense, in the sense that they are able to turn towards a certain call or scent, and as such a turning towards something is inherently a standing with or against something or what we alluded to earlier as a 'standing-in-relation-with', then yes they too can have that 'idea' as well. That not withstanding, however, their 'idea' to put it lightly, has no weight. Thus their claim to their idea, whilst a valid one in regards to what an idea is, lacks importance and weight when con-sidered widely.  

Nowadays, however, people are fucking retarded; they wrongly assert the claim 'everyone is entitled to have their own idea' to mean 'everyone is correct in their ability to have and maintain an idea' no matter how light an idea's inherent importance may be. No one can deny funadamently the ability of an idea to impact others given what we have said in regards to what the essence of an idea is, but the fact that people feel like their idea is important when we said earlier most people don't truly know the weight of something because they have not, they do not know what it means to have a 'true experience' is clear evidence of how soft people are today. 

Experiencing, as it should be apparent by now, necessarily goes beyond what we conceive of as being physical towards a deeper, yet fully related, thinking experience where the true importance of something becomes apparent, appears be-fore: only with you (thus with all???). Such an undertaking, as it should be, is not easy; it's hard as a rock is heavy(重). One cannot take this lightly, and if you cannot take something lightly you should be con-cerned perhaps even fearful of what is to be con-fronted as it is what is most important.

Thus fear, as being that which hinders one from seeing what truly lies before oneself on the path towards something is what needs to be overcome, what one needs(必要) to truly experience as being that which has been overcome to help give weighty-necessity (重要) or importance to an experience; leading to transcendence. Inherently, where fear is, security can not exist, as fear should force one into caring about it upon being truly con-fronted. 

Secure, sine-cure, meaning literally: without care. The only way to overcome fear is to step into it, or better yet by taking a (originary) leap into it (Ur-sprung). A gap separates you from what lies before, thus a leap, perhaps to say it clearer, a leap of faith is necessary? Not a blind leap into the unknown, but into what always has been. Experiences, whence truly experienced, take us back to the origin by lighting the path be-fore of what is, always has been and what will continue to be: the weightiest(最重要) of all. 

So why do so many people not care??? Is there nothing to fear any longer? Do people know, truly and essentially, how to care? Or do people merely have a faint idea left over, a vestigial memory if you will, from sometime or someone who really cared that allows them to have a claim, regardless of how tenuous or hollow it may be, to 'know' about caring and thus blindly believe that they do care? Do people want to care??? 

"The only thing one has to fear is fear itself...". Fear itself never exists in and of itself, it is as it is only as it is con-fronted. Con-fronted by whom? Man. Why is the rule of law held in such esteem? Or western gods? but for the mere fact that they are not man. Man is only safe when he is not man, or to put it clear, as he is not in a relation with himself as man. To rephrase the above quote then we might say, "The only thing man fears is man; his true self (das Selbst, 真正的自己)." Thus man usually finds himself as a mere 'role' or part being played by a 'disinterested' con-ception of an original self for a cyclical purpose; a purpose, mind you, worked out well in advance of the common understanding as to why said purpose or 'goal' is or must be under constant pursuit.  

The ego or I of who we are is only projected outwards as a sliver of who we really are as a mere mask (persona)... Our persona, as is well accepted, is the mask we put on for society, but moreover for ourselves, paradoxically to protect ourselves from our very self. But who are we when we are our True Self???

Does this not call for self-discovery through self-examination or as it is refered to in the East as meditation or 省察 or 自己反省 or 參神...  

To interject into this polemical dialogue, if I can be granted the reprieve in calling this in such a way, what does all of this have to do with weed? Everything and nothing. Please do not take the last sentence as some vacuous truism said just for saying's sake. Words should be said with the greatest care to permit the calling from such saying to carry it's full weight... Such sayings are hard, and are apt to be mis-understood, but this should not discourage the attempt...  

Anyways, weed among other drugs and fear-shrouded objects, has been shown to not 'enlighten' the mind by playing the role of a shortcut and 'turning on' various areas of the brain, but actually serves to shut down a very particular part of the brain responsible for 'projecting' our masked self; our ego. But, we know that despite this literal freeing ourselves from our mask of ourselves, weed can stone us and make us unaware of anything. As a result, weed is used as an escape from the mask; a running away from: read a non con-fronting. 

Thus no experience is to be had. However, what would happen if a teacher appeared in order help and guide others on a true experience with weed. Not to merely 'use' it as a cause to elicit a reaction, although no one can doubt that this sort of relationship can be derived out of such an experience, but to really come to understand what has for thousands of years remained in the shadows due to constant mis-understanding. Even if weed has been used in the past, however distant or near, there has never been a push to experience it as it really is. Such a far reaching Experience would hold within it all that has been and more: the weight of itself upon us. 

To bear the full weight of something, together with it, upon our self; that is a path that once set upon will not serve as an isolated lane dead-ended in itself, but contrarily, as any path that really is a path, will bear a relation to something. Where the relation is, or if such a relation should be found to be the Relation of relations, is far from being decided, but that should not discourage the attempt from happening either. 

Dwelling thoughts

The icy feel of the steel door on my knuckles as they rap against it's hard surface...hoping against hope that inside, inside I might still be able to find...what we can be, again and over still.

The Gods are dead! Gone are the idols...any idol.  Values are revalued devaluating the life we have, might have and have had...  Only hollow concepts now remain, they remain laying flat, sandwiched between morbid texts tattooed with the fake flowers of junkies chasing their own fake flowers from others. Empty concepts kept barely alive with incremental servings of gruel introduced intravenously into their phallic vein confined in those steel cells devoid of the suns reinvigorating rays or the soothing blanket of the moons shadows.

The lights and darks, beams and shadows, contrasts and patterns don't exist here only true death: nothing.   No emotion here, for that contradicts the life, or rather, the lack thereof here.  The most sterile of all; a straight up surgeons wet dream minus the orgasm. 
I'm no longer what I was when I existed as an idea, as eidos... I wasn't a thing, a base object to be stacked upon one another, next to and beneath others to make an academic thought; rather I was part of a relation with you as you stood in front of me, when you stood with me.  And together with the word we traveled together even after you had long disappeared, within the living word that you set up to stand for all those who came after to listen to from out of it's un-concealdness: your true creation.  You created me not through some action but because you knew of me, saw me widely and thought me out into the clearing for me together with your original knowing to think me to others; a true technite.

You are now along a vein of thought believed long collapsed not from overuse like those of a junkies dead forever, but rather like those of an astronauts limbs where blood ceases to flow after time spent in zero gravity for too long.  Dead in death floating in the above abyss but able to live in life below on firm ground; that is what you are struggling back down to.  Can you feel the soil pad your plodding strides back to the origin, where you will think originary thoughts better than those who originated them.

Thinking originary thoughts better than those from whence they came.  One needs to question this statement before and to avoid blindly heading fore.  You come from above, from that empty space you blasted into after shooting your Gods in the face cutting all cords with the values, your anchors that kept you grounded with life.

From up on high you fish down into life catching these steel encased concepts in the holey nets of magnetic isms.  Hoisting them up floating them into some kind of groundless patchwork quilt floating in space ready to breakup again when someone needs a piece or two to complete their own pattern.

But you are down here, not there anymore.  You see now that the steel prison is not a prison and the steel is merely an adaptation to prevent what is inside from disappearing forever.  There is a door, it is small but you are just able to enter.  Inside you spark a blunt, your torch, to expand the light of your thoughts and realize you have comeback to the beginning; the place where you always were and have been.  Now you can see, dwelling with this eidos you think what has and always will continue to be thought so you realize you can hear! I can hear! but I now hear a faint rapping coming from outside these walls...

Name-less Thoughts

Treading, head-down
you've gone fore.
Or so you thought.
Head-up, reflecting
on what's more.
Thoughts you had not.
Too late, head shakes
tears fall on all.
Rotting their thoughts.
Head-clear, now you see
fake is their path, was yours.
Thoughts, thoughts...
One wish: head-less,
thoughts name-less now.

Uttering Containers for Being

I strive to utter containers for being.
Open, to be filled with the fullness and emptiness.
Not tightly packed, taped and ready to ship boxes;
something that can be ripped to shreds, 
taped back up,
or worst yet re-cycled.
I want to walk within the two-folds,
un-concealing what is and has been,
the nearest of the near, but
to most the farthest of the far.
I want to only say Saying
to signal there is a Way
and give you a sense
to re-discover what you've been rushing ahead of.
Listen to what has been said Hermenuetically,
and be messenger
for all that is worthy of question, worthy of thought.
Just be in relation to what holds sway:
the welling up of the message of the two-fold's 
un-concealment.
Now I'm just grasping at the essence...
in order to abandon my own path of thinking
to namelessness.

November's Death

November's death, has swept what's left.
Bereft, inept you slept.
To me, I see what doth be
For we, yes we is be-
ing the whole, of those, whole
in all, with all, as all
that fell or Fall, and walked
then slept. For November's death,
has swept; now, we are left.