Wherefrom
Crone wonder. //
For most of my adolescence, it was my dream to study the ocean, and life in the ocean, as a marine biologist. I was obsessed with coral reefs, the infinite variety of life in them, sea turtles, all of the dolphins and orcas and whales, but especially humpback whales.
Anyway the reason I’m telling you this is because I just found The Voyage of the Mimi on youtube. I think I was in fifth grade when we watched this as a class, one (or if we were very lucky, two) episodes a day. I was already completely into my marine biology phase, I had even been to Woods Hole, (with my scientist father), so watching VotM wasn’t a conversion experience. However it was a rare opportunity for me to sit in school (this was after we moved, soon after I switched from Montessori to public school) and be totally and willingly preached to about something I was “very seriously” into.
And so a moment – a wave – of nostalgia, for a possible other of myself, if I had kept with the marine biology and become a seafaring researcher. (There are reasons why I changed interests and ambitions, I suppress those for a moment.) It really could have, and perhaps should have happened. I went on special school trips and took internships, studying and surveying a few beaches and reefs. It was my dream to be, perhaps, the Jane Goodall (or Dian Fossey, or Biruté Galdikas) of the sea. Could I have been happy doing that?
Would I be happy doing that now? The wistfulness of questions like these, probing gently for regrets, wondering about the paths not taken. How real they were. If the impossibility had been an illusion, a fata morgana, or if the illusion is what drew me away, to concentrate on other things.
The problem was and always will be, I didn’t want to study the ocean as a scientist. I’ve never been much for details and facts, or rather, for stopping at details and facts. I loved for example looking at sea urchin embryos underneath a microscope, but I didn’t want to answer to a laboratory, or write grant proposals or articles. Well, I didn’t even want a job. I wanted a religion, but real. I wanted to bathe in the details and rub them all over me. I wanted to love the ocean, and fall in love with it, again and again, constantly, and worship it. For a while, science was a ritual of my devotion.
Then there was my childhood eco-activism. If it counts as activism, lol. From fourth to eleventh grade, I was constantly researching ecology and environmental issues for school projects. I gave multiple presentations, for example, on “global warming”. I founded at least two iterations of a marine biology club. I was an official member of countless national eco charities, (it’s where I funnelled all my babysitting money), and I had “adopted” several whales, as well as a sea turtle and a gorilla. We were a diverse family. Posters and photographs of animals papered the walls of my bedroom, the biggest of course was a giant poster of a breaching humpback whale, with its calf. And in this moment of writing, I realize that humpback whale was a savior figure, for my childhood self.
Over the two times I went to Woods Hole, I had enough saved-up babysitting money to buy two necklace pendants from the sea-themed souvenir jewelry shop. I agonized over decisions like this. The first one I bought was the tail of a humpback whale. The second one was a crab. Silver-plated talismans of my oceanic familiars.
(Bonus remembering. Before I loved the ocean, I loved unicorns. That worship didn’t take place as science or activism. Unicorn worship was stories and fairytales and secret gardens of the imagination. It was fantasizing about books with beautifully illustrated covers, then finally getting my hands on those books, and reading them under the blankets with a pen light that I “stole” from my dad. There were so many books, but some that I associate with my unicorn phase were The Secret Garden and The Little Princess, which were not about unicorns, but for me they share the vibe, and The Unicorn Treasury. For some reason, I remember waiting what felt like forever for that book, with intense longing.)
These were my safe places and my struggles for justice, icons in silver and lavender, sea-greens, turquoise, and blues, crusty navies and misty greys, intimate communications with untamed spirits, or bracing inquiry at the unstable surfaces of yet-to-be imagined depths. Where I went to find worlds that were real and meaningful, and perhaps, not subject to the arbitrary cruelties of every other mundane thing.
So I was watching Voyage of the Mimi, which is a dear cultural relic, even if it is very blurry. (It was funded by the Department of Education, bless them. The music is great, especially at the end credits, well, it gets better as it goes.) I was remembering those early passions, and also realizing, with some surprise – this feels vindicating, every time it happens – that important things that are here now have been here from the beginning.
On bad or weird days, looking back, it can feel like I’m surveying a lifetime of dead ends, burnt bridges, failure and rejection and loss. Those struggles seem unending and purposeless. It’s easy to beat myself up over every instance when I failed to fit others' expectations of me, or when I had to part ways with my own expectations of myself. When I gave up on things I thought I wanted because I realized that they weren’t real.
On better days, I wonder at what a survivor she was. How heroically she listened to herself, and protected herself, even when I wasn’t paying attention. And I am amazed to see that life has been a circle, always coming back home again. Often by way of my wildest dreams.
So I call that crone wonder.
//
Unsafe Spaces and the Privilege of Peace
//
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
I do not know you. Neither do I know myself.
My desire is to be honest, and to welcome you here.
I espouse neither hatred nor violence.
//
I consider my “real life” to be qualitatively different from my writing and reading life. I suspect there is no one best way to express, explain, or “argue for” this, especially in the ingrained contemporary context of social media. But here, following my own experience, I will try to tease apart the difference.
I love having conversations about books and ideas. I have always sought them out, despite being a socially anxious person. Here are a few examples. I founded a “philosophy club”, with friends, when I was in high school; I went to a unique college where classes consisted of nothing other than text-based seminar conversation; I didn’t want it to stop, so I sought out more in graduate school; as a “teacher”, sitting in a circle with my students, I imposed the same (in my opinion) heavenly practice on them; I also founded a women’s book club, and helped keep it active, until I moved away from the United States.
My personal dream of paradise involves so many conversations, with all kinds of people, over books. These take place as in a state of perpetual youth, around an otherwise quiet seminar table. The scent of springtime occasionally drifts in from an open window, or perhaps it’s fall, with the toasted crunch of fallen leaves and a hot cup of tea. (It is not my present, tropical climate.) Yes, my heart flutters up into my throat when there’s an awkward silence. Or when I’ve made a mistake in argument or expression, I think I might vomit. It doesn’t feel good to be misunderstood or ignored. Nobody carries the same baggage, we are all different, and we speak very often at cross-purposes. So it’s messy and confused. Questions are gaping, answers are rare and the whole experience can be quite terrifying.
But it is the most torturous and humbling and wonderful trial. (To write about it makes me tear up with nostalgia.) Every individual is equally anchored to this gorgeous disaster that occasionally converges in a sublime moment of realization. I love it, it has shaped and nourished me more and better than any other form of social interaction. That, and singing in a chorus, (preferably Mozart, but anything really), are my absolute favorite ways to be part of a group of human people.
In contrast, “online conversation” has always repulsed me. I remember to this day the confusion and then sort of visceral discomfort I felt when F-cebook introduced status updates, and a timeline. I could never explain why, but I could find no use for it. It seemed both too public and too mute, too casual and too leaden. There was nothing I could say that I wanted to say. Soon after, I stopped using the platform. After that, I never really participated in “social media”, until I started this blog.
“This” is not “me”. From the outset, I’ve been pretty heavy-handed (look, I wear a mask in my avatar) in expressing myself according to this, my apparently unusual intuition. But I wanted to be clear with you, and honest, and this was the only way it would work.
So I do not claim an “online identity”. It doesn’t feel healthy or right to do so. And from what I have seen, of these online “places”, it’s not healthy for anybody. To identify closely with an “online persona” isn’t conducive to learning about oneself, or the world.
One reason for this might be the multiple alienations involved in the activity of writing and reading online. These are each complicated, but just in brief. First, to express myself in writing is poetic alienation from myself, as I am, in my body and place. Then, to consume “other people” through their writing is to alienate them from their body and place. This is alienation from the (unwritten, unexpressed, personal-historical, perhaps sub- or unconscious) conditions that might help me better understand who they are, as themselves.
Then, to “read people” online is also a kind of alienation from all of the living people who do not write online, or even, write at all. I think about these people often, I am rather haunted by them. These are the people from whom I will never read, the ones I will only ever read about. The poor, the starving, the refugees, the tech-less masses who appear in news articles about natural and geopolitical disasters. But also, this includes a lot of normal, everyday people, from all over the world. There are many who have no desire to appear in such an alienated form, as is required for entry into the world of online writing.
Finally, “reading people” online is alienation from the living people who are present to me daily, in what I call my “real life”.
This present world of living people, my local and embodied community (family, friends, and neighbors), demand negotiation and compromise in a plethora of ways. It isn’t quite a seminar conversation, (and there’s usually no book involved), but it’s not altogether different. For one thing, we can’t really avoid each other. This is sometimes frustrating, disturbing, annoying, even frightening. Sometimes, we need to ask a person’s help, sometimes to help deal with somebody else. We all have our different personal histories and perspectives. Different ones of us call for different expectations, different treatment, and a different response. Sometimes I adjust my expression toward someone deliberately, in order to avoid confrontation. Sometimes I do it habitually, addressing certain people (elders, community leaders, bosses, professors, doctors) with a certain kind of respect. With friends or intimates, I might tread carefully, especially if there’s a difficult subject but I sense the potential for common ground.
As I mentioned, I’m socially anxious. I have some trouble with eye contact, and I often find myself at a loss for words, or staring off into space. But I do my best, basically because I have no other choice. I like people, for the most part. So it’s worth it to me, to put up with discomfort, although I don’t habitually seek it out. Luckily, I live in a place where people like to come over and visit. They are always very insistent that we visit them back.
//
But “real life” isn’t easy. It requires adaptation, compromise, and (I believe, if you do it well), a constant effort toward reconciliation.
Like most people, I hold certain beliefs close to my heart. And I know better than to expect everybody around me to be (my belief, my opinion, or my strongly-held conviction, of what is) right and good. For example, I am a long-time (>15 years) strict vegetarian/vegan.
(Side note. I bring up veganism not to be divisive, but because it’s an obvious and accessible example of being alienated through “real life” customary practice from an ostensible community. My blog, and even this post, is chock-full of other analogous relationships.)
I believe that “to eat meat” is, more-or-less, murder. This means that I live side-by-side with murderers, in community, in many different circumstances. My family are murderers. My neighbors are murderers. Almost all of my friends are murderers. I myself was previously a murderer. It’s quite terrible to live in a world full of murderers. Even members of my supposed political cohort (which, as an academic, was leftist progressive) pretty consistently deride veganism. There is no sympathy offered to vegans, who have chosen their alternate path, and so have taken a burden on themselves. They are often invoked as the definition of “privilege”, used in the pejorative sense. Over the years, I have worked on how to deal with that. Social alienation can be soul-destroying, but ditching my (otherwise relatively easy) practice of compassion seemed far worse.
So one of the important spiritual lessons of being vegan, for me, has been the effort it takes to understand and forgive the non-vegan world (including my pre-vegan self). To live, think, and engage, without being blinded by constant anger. (To be clear. The anger is at the vast and unfathomable harm involved in modern animal agriculture, the relative ease of removing one’s support from that institution, and the flagrant embrace of “my people” of the dietary status quo.) When I first “went vegan”, I implicitly assumed everybody else would too, simply because our (U.S. American) normal eating habits were so obviously unsustainable. Well, I was obviously naive. (What can I say as an excuse, other than, it was 2008.)
To tame one’s own righteous anger is a basic need, I think, for anybody who, in “real life”, observes a minority belief. Especially so when that belief has dawned later in life, so it feels intentional, like a well-earned choice. Another relevant factor is if that belief is related to justice, or the common good. (I think those who are religious will relate to this too.) Rejecting the “real world” is not an option, but neither is grudging silence. The work is not just to compromise, but to overcome the temptation of alienation and hatred. To not, for example, become the next unibomber.
There’s an irony here. Once one takes the first simple but substantial (because active and everyday) step toward non-violence, one is suddenly presented with a heavy lesson in social alienation. One becomes, in a way, the young Mohandas Gandhi, stumbling around London. The accomplishment doesn’t make things easier. The lure of anger and violence does not dimish, but compounds. Dedication to non-violence is called upon to become measurably more deliberate and serious, as a kind of self-calibrating lesson. Not only to “turn the other cheek”, but to love.
Reconciliation, not by reversion to violence but through some hypothesis of love, becomes a perpetually humbling task.
//
Writing, whereby I separate my words from my local and embodied self, sending them off into a realm of unmoored digital flux, is different.
Writing enjoys freedom from the necessities of “real life”, and many of its compromises. I can make my online writing whatever I believe it should be. It is limited only by my ingenuity and imagination. I no longer need even to submit myself to the messy and imperfect vicissitudes of a group seminar. (Not to mention, subjecting it to the demands of mainstream publication.) My writing can, if I am capable of creating it so, become its own perfect world. This is why I love writing, but also how I know to be cautious of it.
Online writing and reading can seem like a dream come true. The inconveniences of “real life” are many, compared to a written fantasy. The incentives to grapple with its necessities, beyond addressing basic needs, are few, other than a desire for social engagement. It seems that “social media” might, by re-introducing social “others” into a written world, alleviate a tendency toward narrowly-built and myopically-occupied psycheic spaces. “Others” are present as apparently spontaneous written words in the feed, and the user receives social “others” through reading words they did not themselves compose.
However, one chief function of social media has been to increase the degree of our self-curation, as readers. Social media users accept textualized (and thereby alienated) others into their field of view, but only as they choose. Others are not there by presence, accident, reason, or necessity. Even those we choose “to follow” (which really means, to summon onto our screens) have no embodied presence. They never actually go anywhere. Astounding dimensions of the other source remain invisible and excluded from the social media feed. The user fills these gaps with their imagination. Sometimes charitably, sometimes less so, but ultimately, it doesn’t really matter.
The result is that social media users surround themselves with figments of their own imagination. To do otherwise might not be impossible, but it requires the superhuman task of “imagining into being” other peoples' substantial otherness. That is, one must do something for which there is vanishingly little incentive. One must will into imaginative existence all the ugly, confusing, and messy realities of an in-person, non-addictive, locally intimate relationship. Rather than letting that otherness slip away into the void, along with the actual work of relationship building. (Let alone, community.) Which is to say, the easiest thing to do is to avoid the ethical and educative challenges of alienation and reconciliation.
It is not work to get along with a curated timeline. Or rather, it is only the work that the user has (with or without consideration) chosen not to ignore.
This almost necessarily lends itself to narcissistic and histrionic comportment toward others. It teaches social behavior through a simulation of social engagement that eliminates the natural obstacles of “real life”. It’s not even that individuals become tyrants (although the bigger and better-platformed “influencers” often do). But that people, identifying closely with their “online personae”, cultivate mutual and exclusive tyrannies with each other. They build these structures with written snippets of easily-affirmed (or excluded) dogma, including codified language that seems invented for this very purpose. They utilize all the reflexive responses available to the social media machine (“likes”, thumbs-up, retweets, etc.) as tools to fortify the borders. To succeed in a social media “world” is nothing other than to indulge and confirm others' and one’s own very worst neuroses.
It is unnervingly easy to sense whether or not one “belongs” in these sealed-off groups, what are often called “communities”. The lines of exclusion are clearly-enforced and absolute. You’re in, or you’re out. As for me, I’ve only ever floated by, as a silent observer, what one might call a lurker, or possibly an “NPC”. There was never any real reason to participate. Challenging perspectives are welcome only in orthodox and accepted modes. Subversion is made impossible, with alternate possibilities of engagement either unacknowledged or disallowed. It is obvious, from the outset, exactly what one is expected to say. Needless to say, I recognize nothing of my heavenly seminar conversation in this mode of social participation. To me, it is literal hell.
Most of us have experienced, recognized, and to some degree rejected this dynamic. It is mainstream social media in a nutshell, regardless of which profiteer owns the platform. And it encourages people, everywhere, (and increasingly, it seems, on purpose), to grow in catastrophic directions.
I don’t wish to cultivate those tendencies, in myself or others. I imagine you don’t either, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading my blog.
//
In distinguishing the modes of “real life” versus writing and reading, I think the distinction between “play” and “serious danger” is both useful and substantial, if not cut-and-dry. Writing and reading are done in play, while seriousness is reserved for what is present, real, and historical.
(A lot of ink has been spilled on this topic in the academic field of hermeneutics, specifically by Hans-Georg Gadamer. But the idea goes all the way back to the poetic subject of my never-ending adoration/translation, Plato’s Phaedrus. Here, I briefly summarize how I experience this distinction, with regard to my habit as a writer and reader of blogs.)
Alienation endows me with this dubious privilege. That my true self is protected from you, by all these layers of separation. Each word is a half-silvered glass. I’m kind of here, but kind of not. Almost like you. I remind us of this, in all of these silly and unsubtle ways. My personal (hi)stories on here are relevant, but only as footsteps that might lead to some other thing. That other thing is not a fact or piece of information. I am not a newspaper journalist. I am a human person, and my blog is where I meet myself, in writing. Here, I engage your immateriality as a way of invoking and experimenting with my own.
In return, I do not “read you” for the purpose of judging you, in any serious way. I gave up on that endeavor (if temporarily) when I stopped “teaching”, when I stopped marching and shouting in the streets for political causes, when I moved away from the United States, when I took a break from talking to my neighbors and intimates, and started reading the internet, instead. This, here, is something other than that. I always enjoy you, and I would never shout at you, or even give you a grade (lol). The worst I would ever do is to leave you, un-read. I think you probably wouldn’t even notice that. You are in no serious danger from me. I’m really here for us to play a kind of game.
Maybe this is unusual, but I desire multitudes in the “people” I read. I have a voracious, almost unhealthy appetite for it. If there is anything that draws me into the way you express an idea, I want to read you. I’ve found this to be so, regardless of whether I agree with you, or not. Often, agreement doesn’t even apply. You can write about almost anything, from the obscure or intellectual, to the lowest-grade gossip, through “over-sharing” and adolescent “cringe”, to theological or political argument. And don’t get me started on “the boring”. The more boring you seem, the more captivated I am by any accidental glimpse of the hidden world that I know (and perhaps this is my unshakable faith?) is concealed therein.
I am a fiend! I will read you until I am exhausted. Or until I feel ill. Or until something in “real life” pulls me away.
You, to me, are the advantage of being alive right now. You are Odysseus’s oceanic world to explore. An entire internet of extant written work is literally at my fingertips, waiting for me to read and puzzle-solve (and weep with joy) and (mis)understand. Sometimes, to out-trick and escape. Always, to make the story my very own. So how could I confine myself to a textual dimension of self-curated agreement? I’m reckless too, like “the man of many turns”. I do not ask my reading to be “safe”, in fact, that would defeat my very purpose, my deepest desire. Which, as Aristotle points out at the beginning of the Metaphysics, is to see and to know, as whole, the whole of whatever there is to know.
(By the way. If you are reading this, there is a pretty good chance that I already read everything that you post on the internet. And I appreciate all of it, so thanks for expressing yourself in writing. When I write, I’m sure it reflects everything that I have read. I have most likely taken you into account. If you doubt that’s the case, and think I may not “read you”, please send a note by email or through Micro.blog. I will happily add your writing to my RSS feed. This wouldn’t be charity, to repeat, this would be you helping me satisfy my voracious appetite.)
Complementary to this, I do not consider my blog a “safe space”. I meet myself here, and as you can tell by now, I am not “safe”. However, my blogging is done in play, and not as war. In writing, I entertain danger for the sake of discovery, and not from a desire or intent to do harm. I do not pose questions from cruelty, and unless it seems very important, I would hate to hurt your feelings. By telling you, for example, that your feelings aren’t real. I do not believe that at all. I believe that your feelings are immanently real. And if anything I write is ever too painful for you, (or makes you feel ill, or heaven forbid, abused), please, look away.
Here are some examples of my repugnant beliefs, just for fun. (This is me, poking out a Cyclops' eye.) I don’t believe in free will. I don’t believe in historical progress. I don’t believe in human rights. (I do not consider myself a humanist.) I don’t believe “science is knowledge”. I don’t believe information is knowledge, either. I don’t believe all men (or all human beings) are created equal. For that matter, I don’t believe Thomas Jefferson was a genius, or particularly smart, or a good person, at all, (not just for being a serial rapist, but also for that). And I dislike the Declaration of Independence. Etc.
I do believe in other things, that are sometimes difficult to express (and less codified or quantified) in modern terms. (I read a lot of very old books, very early in life.) But these things are often intuitive from an unstudied perspective. I do, for example, believe in being kind. I believe in nature. I believe in human needs. While history may be up for grabs, I treat myself as a work in progress. And in case I haven’t yet made myself clear, above all else, I believe in Love.
//
But “real life” is complicated.
“Real life” amounts to navigating situations I didn’t choose, and never would have chosen. Injustice happens, that’s “real life”. Despite a lifelong effort, there remain many things (mostly involving human people) that simply don’t make sense to me. And yet, “real life” always takes precedence over writing and reading. Sometimes it does so by force. At actually dangerous moments in my “real life”, I stay well away from the “publish” button. Complimentary to that, I hope and pray that when you are in serious danger, you have elsewhere to turn, than to read my (or any) blog.
In my “real life”, I have responded in (sometimes regrettably) absolute ways to political difference. I do not like giving my tacit approval to abhorrent political positions. I do not like sitting at the dinner table with that, or praying with that. I have cut family members out of my life, for years at a time, after finding myself unable to sway them from their support for (what I view as) very bad, and possibly evil, political actors. I’ve made my mother cry too many times. I have mixed feelings about it. I’m not sure how much “real life” good any of it has done.
“Real life” also includes decisions about how to obtain and spend money. Like most people, I try to make ethical decisions, and not to support “evil”. (As I said previously, I’m not here to judge you. I’m sure you do your best. I do too.) For me, veganism is obviously part of my attempt, as food takes up a massive portion of my family’s budget. I’m proud of the money we don’t put toward destruction and collapse acceleration. But in certain areas of “real life”, including medical care, I find that these commitments require compromise. And then, when it comes to technology (phones, tablets, computers, various digital “subscriptions” and “services”), which are all ostensibly luxury items, (and yet, somehow, not really?), matters get incredibly complicated. To avoid the stress of calculating the practically incalculable, I try simply to buy (and to pay for) as little “tech” as possible.
(Here, I arrive finally at the thorn in my side, which prompted this entire, novella-length post. It was a deluge of controversy that struck a virtually microscopic online space. This piece of writing became much longer than I expected or wanted it to be, but maybe now it fits the prompt, even better. If you’ve read this far, then surely you deserve to have my opinion on the issue, which is to say, my “real life” rough calculation.)
The amount of money I pay to my host and platform service, Micro.blog, is relatively small ($5/month). But it’s one of these exceedingly complicated “tech” expenditures. For the sake of comparison, I will probably have to buy a new phone this year, as my screen and casing have cracked for the third time, (each time having repaired it at the local shop, here in Indonesia, where authorized Apple is not-a-thing). The display is starting to malfunction in weird ways, preventing me from hanging up at the end of calls. It’s not ideal. A new phone will cost me, at the low end, $700. That’s more than 11 years’ worth of Micro.blog service. I will hand this money over to a corporation whose CEO has just openly gifted a million dollars to the U.S. American president. I don’t like to support that, not at all. But I will, probably, because the alternatives are not really any better.
I have very little idea what goes into the Micro.blog product. (I am not “a computer person”.) Much of it is invisible to me. But cancelling the service, based on a few embarrassing (and at this point, amply-shamed) posts from a contracted employee, seems patently absurd.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t know these people. I can’t read what’s in their minds, let alone in their hearts. Even or especially when they try to put these things in writing. Like most “tech guys”, they are not the best at expressing their feelings. Nor are they good at resisting the siren song of “shiny new things”. They’re not public relations experts, critical theorists, or acclaimed poets. They are, as many have pointed out, “cis het white men”. Please don’t take this the wrong way, either. But ten years ago, at most fifteen or twenty years ago, I wager you wouldn’t have used those words, or perhaps even known them. With their quick categorization according to hierarchical possibilities of personal well-being, organizing “real life” with deceptive ease, they are pretty clearly born from the hellscape of mainstream “social media”. It’s ok. I promised, I’m not here to judge you.
But dear God. Isn’t it time for a little humility?
I can’t read what’s in your heart. Mine, also, is often a mystery to me. And yet I write this blog, and expose you to my idiosyncratic observations and negations and whatever else flows from these (sometimes, apparently, deranged) fingers. The deeper the question, the weightier the responsibility. I take care to caution you regularly about my writing, because I have (to some degree) been humbled. I am not blind to my limitations, which are personal, to be sure, but also inherent in the very act of writing online. I have no way of knowing who or what is on the other end of this, and how it might influence anybody at all.
I am words in the dark, mixing with other words, in the dark. Nothing here is pure. This risk is incalculable in a whole other way.
However. I do believe that “indie blogging” is peak anti-fascist internet participation, right there alongside other things that get too complicated and dangerous for me (in “real life”) to consider (like hacking, or espionage). So by my rough calculation. Even if I’m paying a few USD a month to a closeted fascist fanboy, and his slow-to-respond, painfully naive boss, who doesn’t give anybody the exact official statement they demand, (Honestly, I don’t believe this is fundamentally who I am dealing with. I think these are just normal, well-intentioned, clumsy communicators. But as I said, there is no real way for me to know), that is still ok with me. Really ok, in “real life” fact. Because my rough calculation still holds.
Fascism, in this exchange, has gotten the raw end of the deal. This right here—me, with my un-timely and meandering response, (and you with yours, which I am pretty sure I have already read, and for which I was grateful)—This right here is the true revolution.
We win.
Speaking of which,
//
From a theoretical or “philosophical” perspective. There remain open questions (OPEN QUESTIONS, I am tempted to shout, but in “real life” I know better) that current U.S. American political discourse has shut down into black-and-white demands for allegiance. “Shutting down open questions” is how many people respond to fear and uncertainty (i.e. danger, real or perceived). That’s understandable, I’ve done that too. Emergencies require reflexive, rather than circumspect, action.
But when the (federated or not) world of online writing is treated as a battlefield, it precludes thoughtful engagement and learning. (It also builds resentment and misunderstanding.) So it precludes U.S. Americans (as their online-written personae) from thoughtfully engaging with each other in open-minded ways. It also precludes thoughtful engagement between U.S. Americans and people from throughout the world, who come from vastly different traditions and cultures. (And subcultures, and marginalized minorities, not to mention individual people who are utterly unique. I want to believe. They do exist.)
A lack of thoughtful dialogue, and the decreased capacity for it, has ripped “the United States of America”, as a “real life” political entity, apart. This has subjected everybody in the world, (in the “real life” world, whether they are recognized by U.S. American discourse as “marginalized”, or not), to exponentially greater danger.
Every living thing, subject to death, becomes “marginalized” by war.
Above all, shutting down open questions precludes inquiry into the truth. (This includes inquiry concerning God, nature, the divine.) Peace, perhaps, is not just a prerequisite for such inquiry, but also its end. Rightly labelled as a “privilege”, and wrongly available to some more than others, peace, (or as it is sometimes misleadingly labeled, “leisure”), is that very thing for which we might courageously endure countless discomforts or dangers. But to shut down inquiry into open questions enacts the opposite transaction. It sacrfices all of this—-truth, God, and the potential for discovering a common cause—-in the name of making war.
War is ignorance in action. Non-violence is the only foundation for understanding. My priority here (on my blog, in my writing) will always be the latter. This isn’t because myself and my loved ones are safe from the imminent and global danger whose toxic vortex looms over the country of my birth. Nobody anywhere is safe. But I believe that the only thing that will redeem any of the “real life” destruction, that is already well underway, is to be found in and through truth and understanding.
Which means, for me and my blog, that we’re staying here. To exercise my capacity, in full view of the problematic and unsafe creature that (in “real life”) I am, to discover, envision, and enact, a life, in writing, of peace.
Thanks for reading, to anyone who got this far.
_ Alhamdulillahirabbilalamin._ 🌒
//
Where-from? Chickens’ Edition
I’m celebrating, because after two days living on coconut water and white bread, I graduated today to whole wheat bread. You see, I have the flu. Or, “a” flu? Just basic old-fashioned flu, not one of the trendy new viruses (you know the ones). I’m already feeling better, enough to be fantasizing about a fully-loaded veggie burger, (sauerkraut is mandatory), however, I remain shaky-feeling and weak, so my realistic plan for tonight is noodle soup. And maybe a fruit smoothie. (InsyaAllah there will be a burger on Friday.)
Grace is feeling better too, I think. She stopped pining around the brooding nest and started hanging out with Frankie again. So Frankie is more of a paranoid asshole with everybody else, (including his own children), but it’s because he’s protective of Grace. So we can’t fault him. He’s back to finding her morsels of food and making cozy nests for her. (Is he actually an ideal partner?) If they haven’t already, they’ll probably start mating again soon. (That decision is up to Grace.) Those two are inseparable.
Doing a little “research”, I realized that our chickens are probably different from the domestic chicken breeds popular in North America and Europe. Frankie is similar in appearance to the red junglefowl. This is the wild bird, native to Southeast Asia including Indonesia, from which chickens were domesticated thousands of years ago (~8,000). Red junglefowl cocks are strikingly handsome birds, as is Frankie. The wikipedia article notes that they are sometimes used in cock fighting, which remains popular around here (in Bali). When wikipedia says “sometimes” about Indonesia, I have learned to interpret that as “often”. So I would imagine Frankie’s genetics are pretty close to that source, and it’s not surprising that he would come across as somewhat feral.
We “acquired” Frankie before we moved into our house, when he wandered onto our property and didn’t feel like leaving. So he has lived here longer than we have. He was still a chick back then, but apparently old enough for independence. We later learned that he had been chased away from our neighbor Pak T’s house, by their cat. (Pak T said we could keep him.) Then we “acquired” Grace when Pak S brought her over, also before we moved in, and left her in a small bamboo cage in the yard. This was either a gift or an instance of Pak S not wanting to deal with her, possibly because she had five chicks at the time. (Or it was, for Pak S, an entertaining test of what we would do with a mating pair of chickens? I really don’t know, he just laughed about it when we asked him! All I know is, we weren’t consulted about whether we “wanted” any of them.) Because we didn’t live here yet, our carpenters kind of took care of the chickens. I assumed everything would be ok. But over several nights, those five chicks that came with Grace disappeared. They were probably hunted and eaten by the same cat that had chased Frankie.
When I learned about it, I felt guilty about that, Grace losing all her chicks while she was stuck in the cage. This is one reason I really wanted Grace to experience motherhood, fully, at least once. (My sense of justice!) And that’s what got us into the situation where we have a flock of eleven chickens. Or at least, one flock of nine chickens, and another flock of two chickens. It remains unclear whether Frankie and Grace want to integrate with their children’s flock at all. On second thought, maybe it’s totally clear. The parents and the children simply consider themselves separate flocks.
(Imagine that. I actually said to one of them today… “It’s ok, I have a mean dad too.” …)
For her part, Grace doesn’t look like a red junglefowl hen. She looks very much like this other breed of chicken from Indonesia, also used for cock fighting, the Ayam Cemani. She’s a lovely bird, with a soft and thoughtful look, although my photos haven’t yet captured it. I doubt she’s any kind of pure breed, but she is completely black, with only the faintest blush on her “caruncles”. (There’s a lot of chicken vocabulary to learn.) Another reason I doubt she’s purebred is because wikipedia says Ayam Cemani aren’t good “setters”, whereas Grace is a very broody chicken. When that time comes, she is utterly devoted to sitting on her eggs.
My thinking is this. Most domestic chickens have been bred for egg and/or meat production, and possibly for docility, whereas our chickens have been bred, (and/or taken from the jungle?), for fighting, and/or allowed to breed free-range. As a result, I don’t expect them to be very cuddly birds. But I do expect them to be smart in their own ways, as wild or feral animals are. And they are thoroughly social, with each other and with us. It’s apparent that they consider us (humans) company, they always come “check out” what we’re doing, or sit nearby us (under the awning) when it’s raining and they’re bored, or ask for treats (boiled peanuts). They (warily) eat from our hands. They look at us accusingly when we don’t have peanuts for them. And if I speak to Grace in sweet coos (like Cucurrucucu), Frankie gets testy.
(Although I always think of it as Frankie’s, that song isn’t about a rooster, but a lovesick coo-ing dove. Please click the link if you’ve never heard Caetano Veloso’s rendition. You won’t regret it, it’s heart-achingly lovely. We need more Caetano Veloso and Almodovar in all our lives, don’t we? And then for another version, this one sung by Juan Diego Florés at La Scala is sublime. Watching that reminds me of that one time I was there. Also, watch for the look he gives the loggionisti—it’s so direct!)
Anyway, that’s more-or-less the origin story of our chickens. They showed up in our lives, like our three cats, and we weren’t ever given a real option to say no. And they (unlike the cats, who are now imprisoned in our safe, loving, and amply medicated home) are technically free to leave. Although once a few of Grace’s chicks escaped outside the wall and we spent a rainy afternoon traipsing through overgrown jungle and rice paddies to retrieve them, with Grace frantically waiting back home. She was very upest about it. That was when they were still babies. Now they’re almost grown, the girls will probably start laying soon (if they haven’t already, in secret), and one of the cockerels has, as signaled by his crowing, decided he’s the leader of the flock. The chicks have their own governance structure now. They could fly over the wall if they wanted, but they seem pretty content to hang around here. Even if we are delinquent chicken keepers and have yet to figure out their permanent coop situation. They may not be cuddly, but it’s pretty obvious that they will love when we give them a permanent and roomy chicken house, dry and warm, with brooding boxes, etc. They would live with us in the human house, if we let them. But that’s too much even for me.
By the way, we did eventually screen off the hallway, so the human house is totally off-limits now. Thank goodness, because the poop grew up as they did… the quantity makes it gross, but excellent fertilizer for the gardens. And oh, please pray for us that we never experience an outbreak of avian influenza. (My own symptoms do NOT match those of A H5N1.)
(I still haven’t told you what we do with all the eggs. That can wait for another day.)
Because look at me, I’m still in bed with this flu and I had planned to give myself a solid 3-4 days off of “serious blogging”. But then I accidentally wrote this long post and spent the afternoon reading some of these older posts and listening to music that makes me tear up and/or shout bravissimo and wave my hands around like I’m in The Godfather. And yesterday I read the whole book about learning to speak chicken! Apparently I’m ok at resting the body, but not great at resting the mind. I can’t believe I haven’t had coffee in three days. That’s truly wild.
Maybe it’s because of the full moon? Selamat purnama, everybody. Stay healthy and safe.
Alhamdulillahirabbilalamin. 🌕
Nu baby. //
So… life, uh, found a way. We tried (admittedly have been a little distracted) to steal all of Grace’s eggs but she tricked us and hatched one! Just one. A heaping tablespoon of pale yellow fluff. Well, it’s just not possible to be sad about an itty bitty chick.
(I love Laura Dern in that clip.)
This one is light-colored, while the first clutch was all black. Already a tiny misfit.
The other chickens, teenagers now, are so far curious about the new baby. Grace pecks them if they get too close. (Very fierce.) They stay out of reach and crane their necks to watch it, (all of them at once, chickens are such gossips), while it hip-hops around mom’s feet.
We needed to rearrange the chicken living space to make it cozy for Grace and nu baby. So we took apart the old arrangement, but the chickens got a little upset about it. So there was some chaos theory with chickens flapping first up on the laundry line then up to the roof of the little limasan (our bedroom).
Chickens on the roof!
There was also a big storm that blew through when E was fixing chicken stuff and I was doing yoga. I was worried about the tiny puff-ball blowing away, but Grace disappeared the baby up into her feathers and hunkered under the downpour. She didn’t even move under the eaves of the house, to escape the rain, she just turned herself into a house. She is truly amazing.
When the rain cleared and the sun came out, nu baby came out too, peep-peeping again. Precious marshmallow. (They’re still a little clueless on day one.
To be honest, I’m worried about its chances of survival, being just one tiny peep in the midst of a boisterous flock of claw-talon-footed brothers and sisters. It will be a new test of Grace as a mother. InsyaAllah she will prevail.)
To relax from all that, I listened through Kendrick’s “beef” with Drake from last spring. They released 7 or 8 tracks taking shots at each other. All I can say about that is, hip-hop is amazing social media.
(Note. I think most of my pop culture “takes” will be a few years or decades late. “News” includes anything that happens in my lifetime, is how I see it, on my blog.)
Anyway, back to Kendrick “I said ‘we,’ it’s not just me, I’m what the culture feelin'" Lamar.
(euphoria, meet the grahams, Not Like Us)
Rap is an amazing rhetorical medium, but also, Kendrick has spoiled me for almost all other artists. Sometimes he makes it chill, sometimes angry, sometimes tragic or funny, (“some shit just cringeworthy”), but it’s always a contest, (for victory wreaths, and he didn’t come to the games to place second. He will sniff out and attack the evil (=the Drake fan?) in you. He makes music a war for the soul.
(And for his family, and for those disowned by other families, and ultimately for the soul.)
Alhamdulillahirabbilalamin. 🌖
I finished Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red Mars // maybe a week ago. I really liked it but I think it took me the whole year to finish.
(Spoilers follow.)
It was relaxing. Not facile, but easy to read when stressed out about other things. Good for falling asleep too. The pages are full of lush descriptions of Martian geology, seen from gliders and rovers and windows and walkers, and also, of humans being very human. I think the viewpoint is… near-future, mild tech optimism made palatable by human realism, where humans routinely do callous and violent stuff, like sending out a Mars expedition while trashing planet Earth. They are a destructive force, ever-changing and -surviving, and some who have good ideas are also gifted with good luck and timing. The 90’s vintage works (published 1992, I think). It wouldn’t work nearly as well, if written today, with all of the darkness of these days. Perhaps this is an example of escapism from history, while still being canny to human nature. It’s much nicer to think about the future from a pre-9/11 perspective, isn’t it?
Robinson’s characters are like avatars, but not (to me) in an overbearing way. I especially like his women characters. Maybe these are his favorite too. I like Ann, the geologist, who is a staunch defender of virgin, untouched, original Mars. The plot of the book, which follows the beginning of humans colonizing Mars, as terraforming is begun, and the landscape is ripped apart by industry and eventual rebellion and war, is an extended grief, for Ann. She loves Mars with unspeakable devotion and hates the terraforming with every cell in her body. Her perspective is difficult and severe, but beautiful.
And I like Hiroko, who completely subverts all the official directives of their initial mission. She is the designated biosphere designer, and it seems like she has some amazing ideas for how to create life. Then she and her followers ditch the main group and spend most of the book shrouded in mystery. Well, she is busy making babies using all the men’s sperm samples, taken from her lab, (without anybody’s consent), and creating an underground cult movement called Areophany that worships viriditas, or life-force. She is disciplined and insane, also very difficult, impossible to contain or to fully know. She answers to nobody and recognizes herself as a force of nature. Like a Mars-mother goddess. As you may know by now, I love this kind of thing.
(Can’t forget to mention, there’s a scene in this book, with a character named John Boone, a goofy lovable American, a charismatic and nice guy, who has an ecstatic experience with a group of travelling Sufi Muslims. They are dancing and whirling around in the vortex of a crimson dust storm, flying through the air and spinning in the low gravity of Mars, chanting all the different names of Mars, with all the names of Allah. The image is one of flying-spinning through a great blood-red alien heart. This scene is wonderful, not to be missed!)
There are other women characters less extreme in their commitments, and many other things to love about the book. These are just my favorites. Happily, Ann and Hiroko are both still around in the next book, Green Mars. I started it a few days ago. Maybe this one will take me another year to finish?
With relief. //
Does this seem right? It’s neither the power nor the responsibility of a child to forgive a parent. To forgive, as to judge, is the power and the act of God. The power and responsibility of a child is to communicate their need for care.
There is also the literal groundlessness (earthlessness, lifelessness) of anger directed against a parent. (As usual, thinking of Achilles. But these really seem like lessons of Abraham, …) It’s there, the rage, as a feeling, but it makes no natural sense. Like an artifact of (divine) omnipotence. What a child feels and expresses toward a parent (Ismail’s crying) isn’t a judgment, but an unaddressed need for care.
Likewise, there’s something perverse when a parent asks their child for forgiveness. Why are you putting that burden on your child? As a child, I could never not welcome one of my parents into my house, or into my heart. But that’s not forgiveness, I don’t think, it’s just being a child. To forgive, as to judge, is the power and act of God.
There’s a rough and ready (“embodied”) justice grown into generational (“blood”) relationships, which already negotiate between the finite and infinite circumstances of a political animal, the things we might demand of each other, the things we must release. It’s maybe easier, from the perspective of liberalism, to recognize the arbitrary nature of familial justice and its proneness to abuse. (When there is no viable rejection of, or emancipation from parents.) But maybe it provides some rudimentary shelter for sanity, and a solider liberation.
It was a rainy afternoon, E and I both fell asleep while watching a movie, took a nap. Woke to the sound of more thunder and fireworks for New Year’s Eve. Which I care about only a little, (we’ll observe the lunar year), but ok. This seems like a pretty good thought-feeling to end 2024. With relief. That it simply isn’t my place, to judge or even forgive my parents. Of all the things that are my responsibility, that’s not one of them.
As Prophet Abraham, (peace be upon him), to his father. “I will pray for your forgiveness, but I have no power to rescue you from Allah.” (Surah Al-Mumtahanah, Ayat 4.)
Alhamdulillahirabbilalamin. 🌑
Chanced upon Bob’s 2017 Nobel lecture, which made me realize a few things. 1. Being a folk singer isn’t too different from blogging. 2. I should read All’s Quiet on the Western Front, which I never read. And 3. Does the blog maybe need some audio voice recording? Just something to think about.
The lecture is a pretty amazing “where from”. Even though I catch flashes or hints of them in the songs, I never heard him talk so explicitly about books before. “I return once again to Homer, who says, ‘Sing in me, oh Muse, and through me tell the story.’” Nobody misquotes translates Homer like Bob.
(What strikes me is his piety.)
This is also what I call translation, which is both poros and poiesis.
Daughters of Typhon
// Phaedrus 227β // Isthmian 1
It felt good to translate Isthmian 1, like eating a nourishing bowl of food, with green and purple vegetables, roast potatoes, tempe, tender steamed rice underneath, and spicy peanut sauce drizzled (generously) on top. Doing something like that makes me feel applauded by ancestors, for sure. The only translations of that poem I could find (public domain) were so very fine (It’s awe-inspiring how flowery the old-fashioned translators were. What alien world did they come from, those boys of clubby leisure? Did they drink honey-wine for breakfast before sitting down to work?) that I failed to detect in them the brilliance of an original. Which I uncovered as I worked it out and translated for myself. Using fewer words, less adorned, to give it my own meter, then to brush away the sediment from this cut and polished gemstone. To put it in my words, to shape my lips around the poetic act.
As a physical, full-bodied shiver. I could feel the pride of the author, in the poem’s re-discovery.
“What’s more beloved / By good men than their parents, esteemed?” Indeed, smiling, I admired our work. Other possible translations for “esteemed” could be “cared for”, “valued” or “cherished”. Good people love to see their parents taken care of, “placed on high”, publicly loved. If you enjoy seeing your parents respected and celebrated, you are probably a good person. So suggests Pindar. And this is what I have done by translating his poem. Isn’t it? I have cared for a parent, if I could consider Pindar a parent. Could I? Would he be a father, or maybe a grandfatherly figure? If he would accept me, as such. Maybe.
//
Fathers and grandfathers are hard to come by, around here. Okay, the subject is difficult. I grew up without grandfathers. Then my father was (and is) a piece of work. He spent my childhood teaching me to read his darker feelings. I became very good at that.
It was not an easy childhood. I was somehow hoarded by him, he was my primary caretaker, or anyway, my mother left me unprotected, unshielded from the intensity of his self-loathing, which he daily poured over me like fuel, with which I should also burn. Maybe worse than if it had all been hostile, the infliction (and it was violent, if an adult man yelling full-force close to a six year-old girl’s face, as if to teach her with terror, is violent, his spittle in her eyes, as she is petrified and panicking with shame, and the daily ritual of this, for the first fifteen years of my life, that it framed everything) alternated on-and-off with love, as an oddly infantile affection.
My parents divorced when I was eleven or twelve. (It was after they had a giant fight, in Disney World.) A few years after that (when I was a teenager) I stopped living with my father, basically for fear. I called him and said I would live with my mother full time. I thought I was free then, but it was still all I knew. I had no perspective on the conditions of anger and shame I had suffered, through which I had learned (pathei mathos, as Aeschylus) the meaning of (fatherly) love. An open question, (mine), of whereto and wherefrom. What does it take to recover from that kind of growing up?
I (on my request) went to therapy with him, tried to keep in touch with him, (he never called me, he’s not that kind of parent), and struggled for years to maintain a tolerable connection with him. Until at (after the ceremony and reception were over, I’m not such an asshole) my sister’s wedding (in Disney World again, yes, of all places), (we are very different people), like so many times before, he found a reason to shame me. As if to re-establish dominance over a dangerous dog. He did it, as always, when nobody else was there to see. It was after I suggested taking my neice and nephew out for ice cream. I guess he thought that was the stupidest idea. The familiar timbre of his punishing voice, the physical vibration low and threatening, set my inner child quaking with fear. I took a deep breath and (not for the first time) told him he couldn’t talk to me like that anymore. I would not “be bullied”. He refused to admit wrongdoing, would not make eye contact for the rest of our time there. We all flew home from Disney World, and I didn’t call him again, after that.
(I pause here, to note some broader family context.)
My mother, although she was the target of his abuse for years, and her tears were my tears, rarely admits there was anything wrong. She says she didn’t know how he treated me. At first I thought that was impossible. As a child, I felt like she must know. I felt somehow like we were together in that, but also she would never speak of it, which was a betrayal. Here I begin to doubt my memory, and maybe it’s possible that nobody knew, my mom or my sister. Although there was very harsh treatment at the piano, my worst memories are from when I was closed away in “the study”. That was where he made me do hours of extra school work each day. The most severe of his demands, castigations, and punishments, might have been hidden. But my understanding remains foggy, because my dad was often very loud, when yelling how stupid or wrong I was. And how could my mother not know? Of course, anyone in her position wouldn’t want to know. Anyway, she doesn’t like to talk about it.
My sister holds it against me for “leaving him”. (She remained living with him up into her thirties, even after being married and having two children.) Although she avoids talking about it too, and I only got that snippet of perspective from her husband, so it might not even be true. Again, it seems like nobody else witnessed or acknowledges his longterm mistreatment of me, or cares. To the point that I begin to doubt my own memories. I’m not sure what I can say about that. It is a terrible thing, trying to choose between memories and familial acceptance.
An uncle, my mother’s brother, told me that I was an adult, so I should understand that I was “safe now” and endure mistreatment.
Their father, my maternal grandfather, was no better. My beloved grandmother (may she rest in peace) was the only one who would talk about him. Her stories suggest that he was quite nasty. He threatened her (my grandmother) with a pistol before abandoning them, when my mom and her brother were children. He pretended they died in a car accident and married somebody else. My grandmother also claims he broke into the house, after leaving, and stole her jewelry. She would tremble when she spoke of him. The man’s obituary (he passed in 2021, coincidentally just weeks after my grandmother) mentioned none of us as descendants.
My father, for his part, had cut both of his parents out of his life before I was born. I assume that my grandfather did a similar thing to my father, as my father did to me. This is not something he would ever talk about. I have no way of knowing. But I imagine there was a lot of meanness and cruelty there. And then, my father once told me he despised his mother for being “superficial” and “just a socialite”. My memory of that conversation is vague, and I’m really unsure how to interpret it. Anyway, that’s how I grew up without grandfathers.
(Violence doesn’t grow on trees, after all.)
Even though we hadn’t spoken in several years, I flew across the country to see my father before I moved to Indonesia (in 2019). I wanted to say goodbye, or “pay my respects”. There was no argument, but politeness, as a brief and transparent veneer. Underneath the tension was barely concealed his skepticism and contempt toward me and my life choices, along with a performative, condemnatory aloofness. The lack of warmth, not even by habit or accident, was heartbreaking. It was under duress and for the sake of survival that I had learned the languages of his shifting shadows, threatening always from the borderline of his (my) joy. Maybe I became too sensitive. How many times should I (could I) make myself vulnerable, by caring, or even smiling, in his presence? To be whipped with inexplicable rejection, at an unguarded moment, with shame, humiliation, and a panic whose bilious flavor would seep into all areas of my person, my body, my life. At the end, there was no hug goodbye. There was only a stiff wave.
We haven’t spoken since I moved to the other side of the world, so around five years, and that’s where my time with him leaves off. Sometimes I wonder what I will do when he dies. Or if he gets sick, how will I know? How will it make me feel? (The answer is very, very sad.)
Incidentally, Christmas Eve is his birthday, which is today. It has always cast a sadness across the holiday, to remember rituals of childhood pain, contrasted with those of childhood joy. (Like his joy, when he opened the packs of socks we always gave him, as that’s what he always asked us for). And just in case there are any doubts. I would happily reconcile, if he ever reached out, or otherwise communicated that he wanted to change, or just communicated that he wanted to communicate. I know he is tormented and I wish I could help. But if I had stayed, it wouldn’t have helped. It would just have been staying with abuse.
With all of my heart, I wish I knew how to make it (my father) right.
//
It feels natural (or inevitable) to blame myself for this alienation. No matter my trying to do the best thing, no matter me persuading myself I tried hard enough, or I’ve done enough self-work, or healing, it seems as though I am stained. It feels similar to my alienation from the country of my birth. (So I slip into speaking of “staying” and “leaving”.) With whom I tried, again and again, to make it work, (I fought for myself, in you), but from whom I grow only stranger, as my life goes on. (Or. As our synchronous deaths carry us ever further from reconciliation.) There has been a ripping out of organs, bones cracked, a wrenching of spines, skin charred and flayed. It brings me no joy to have these great gaping wounds in my soul. They are ever-ripe and liable to fester. They require constant vigilance, and even so, they spawn offspring.
As if to supply a perpetual war.
I wish to be a good, healthy, dutiful person. I wish to repay my debts, to respect my elders. I realize that I need a city wall, and stable laws to protect a soul from harm. But I would ask all the fathers, the poets and patriarchs, Plato, Socrates, Pindar. Even Bob. How now? What is wrong with me? Am I not “a good man”? How should I, if I am to be good, celebrate such broken things? Should I place them on high, and be broken to pieces, beneath them?
Or. Should I not myself have been powerful enough to put everything back together?
Or. Together again? What would be this “again”?
Or. What was the thing, unbroken?
The father unbroken. If it never was my personal father, what could it have been? Was it the shining city on a hill, or the beautiful one writ in heaven? Was it a garden, or a book? Was it the silver-bearded grandpa on the chapel ceiling? Or the Christ that broke all his own Fathers' rules? In whose name predators ascend to power, in a greusome catharsis that used to be the country of my birth. So I know that it wasn’t the Declaration of Independence, or the U.S. Constitution. But was it Herodotus of Thebes, two-and-a-half thousand years in the past, on his magnificent golden chariot, whose reins were not held by another’s hands? Was it you, whose poetry tells of such things? As fathers, holy, revered, and unbroken. A six year-old girl, with no working fathers, and crumbling city walls, needed, for her life, to know.
//
Daughters, put to such questions, will only
Become witches. (We, who find
we are
as we do
as we make
as we uncover fossils
Of animals that could have been held high by us,
Who might make (us) right
In return, and growing backwards, as generations,
Flourish in veiled vacancy. I cherish your words.
And I make them my own.
But these things were broken long before I was born.)
With my words as my mark, (by such easy deathlessness),
We live and we breathe
(Laughing, replying) without a father’s permission.
//
(About.)
Just playin', again. // Although we can’t actually listen to this album, because when we do, we just cry,
As one who is broken.
I am primarily an emotional listener to Bob Dylan, . .. Because that is what he has taught me to be.
Evil is gifted a new aspect, with “Black Rider”.
The grandfather’s follow-up to the suckling child’s “Idiot Wind”.
(The end-of-days bard, the weariness of Zeus, the predicament of Lot..)
There’s obviously a lot of (that old time) (Ancient Greek) religion in here.
Bob always writes my exact kind of briar patch. I guess I’m crying, I realized, because I’ve been needing the kind of comfort only he could give. I can’t say how grateful I am to hear the specific and living sound of his voice, right here in my ears. On my pirate radio station. A perfect antidote to… farthiness. The awareness of being too far away.
Evil got theirs, now “Key West” is givin the old “written on my soul, from me to you”.
“Hibiscus flowers,
They grow everywhere here.
If you wear one,
put it behind your ear.“
Alhamdulillahirabbilalamin (Mother of Muses) for blessing this world, (this one here, that I live in, my world), with Bob Dylan.
Just playin’ some Bob
Σωκράτης: ὦ φίλε Φαῖδρε, ποῖ δὴ καὶ πόθεν;
Socrates: Beloved Phaedrus, where to and where from?
(…)
Φαῖδρος: πεύσῃ, εἴ σοι σχολὴ προϊόντι ἀκούειν.
Phaedrus: You will learn, if there is leisure for you, as you go, to hear.
Σωκράτης: τί δέ; οὐκ ἂν οἴει με κατὰ Πίνδαρον “καὶ ἀσχολίας ὑπέρτερον πρᾶγμα” ποιήσασθαι τὸ τεήν τε καὶ Λυσίου διατριβὴν ἀκοῦσαι;
Socrates: What? Don’t you think, as Pindar, I would make it “a matter higher even than non-leisure (business)”, to hear about your and Lysias' spending?
//
Behold, the destiny of human (political) being in its interior conflict: between the erotic-philosophic (desirous and r/evolutionary) soul and the material body’s need for (protective and conservative) law; with its resolution in the dialectic of (political/poetic) education; the infinite freedom of the human soul, as philosophy, is yoked (by logos/music), in service as conservation, to the body (politic/imaginary).
(Here is my Plato-feeling, “tree-reading” I should call it, or a tentative shorthand, The Republic in a nutshell, but with all of these other things, %gestures at blog%, in mind, and always, of course, through the lens of Phaedrus.
Translating you is mothering multitudes.)
//
I got caught up (through these next few lines of Phaedrus, which revolve poetically around leisure, and get sling-shotted around by Socrates' inversionary or may I call it tropical conservatism) thinking about leisure and responsibility, duty to parents and country, what one owes, how one serves. So I got caught up thinking about mothers and fathers. You can’t talk about “where from” without leisure, says Phaedrus. But you really can’t talk about it without mothers and fathers, and their celebration (in poetry), which is right where Socrates puts us, with Pindar, in Isthmian 1.
Then it happened that writing about fathers found me in a dark place, and I didn’t feel good about posting what I wrote. I will post it, but I needed to write this first.
To whom do I owe pleasure?
To whom do I owe life?
(Fertile Phthia is like the valley below, but for Achilles.
The valley below is like Key West, but for me.)
//
Listening to Bob Dylan’s more recent Rough and Rowdy Ways. Playing it for the chickens, it’s a great sound for them, they love it. For me, I’m always trying to be ready for this album, ever since I wasn’t several years ago, (the first year of the pandemic), when it was released. (That whole first year, I could only listen to two albums, but that’s another story for another time.) One of the boys practices crowing for “Black Rider”. As if to say, “these kids”, Frankie starts in with “Goodbye Jimmy Reed”. He sounds so eloquent and sleekly up-tempo with Bob’s Tennessee whisky-soaked blues.
And then Bob takes us to church with “Mother of Muses”. Something about this reminds me of Little Drummer Boy, (from my favorite Christmas album, I admit, every year I weep for this song), it is a hymn sung with the same dutiful reverence, Bob’s most lovely and humble offering for Her. There is an Illiad and an Odyssey in his storyful prayer. Key West is a place to get away, (the one we need), the permission to go, the road and the highway sign to get there. (Honestly surprised at how many holes these fathers have left, written into the city walls. If only I trust myself to find them.)
Sunset and the bending-of-light through its longing shades of exit, and plentiful tears falling again for “Murder Most Foul”. I am learning from Bob how to remember someone who was already dead before I was born. Bob sings a shining, shimmering like-a-mirage, place of hope, dream on a hill.
The hardest thing about the death of a parent, from what I have seen, or what I have heard, is a leftover feeling of guilt, as of a duty unfulfilled. I wonder what kinds of things Bob feels responsible for, I mean to speak of history. He was there as the centerpiece of revolutionary American culture, although he constantly resisted being there, in his perverse way, until that worked and he wasn’t there, anymore. But he was at the heart of it, so if anybody could feel the pulsating heartbeat, I believe it would be Bob. He tells of the leaning over and falling of the body, into her lap, he tells me there was something alive, and then it was not, and (whispering, by now) it did not die a natural death. It was, he repeats, “a murder most foul”, and as I am alive, I believe him.
He gives us the funeral we need (at least, we who are left to listen).
It is a slow procession, full of myriad moments bitter and painful, a retrospective drawn by sorrowful progress toward the inevitable end. American destiny. Every dreamlike revolution is new tears flowing, emptying out in grandiose repetition, as an over-abundance of scattered light. It is a song of anger that would be too deep to feel, were it not already healing itself, like a laundering in the sea. The taste of frothy sand in Key West, washing away the beach, washing away the stain of the crime. Like Jackie washing the blood off her clothes, America washing the death off her clothes, after all the years. Our bard fulfills his final duty, delivering the eulogy, that’s what it feels like. After more than fifty years spent trying to understand who it was, what it was that died. Seeing the shining, past the anger, through the grief, of love.
Can’t talk about elders without talking about Bob Dylan. He tore it apart, turned it upside-down, and re-made it whole, again and again. A parent for poets and pirates, and probably philosophers too. (Remember that time when he gave us a recipe for figgy pudding on TTRH?) Love you forever, Bob.
//
School Days in Athens
Φαῖδρος: ναί, παρ᾽ Ἐπικράτει, ἐν τῇδε τῇ πλησίον τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου οἰκίᾳ τῇ Μορυχίᾳ.
Phaedrus: Yes, at Epicrates', in the house of Morychos, here, near the Olympiad.
//
Take words to it,
he said, and words were fire. And yet, you lacked
conviction. Crowded by black memories
of unseen hands and uninvited touch,
as old men’s trembling clammy kindnesses,
their groping behind doors, our voices as
stray syllables, or whimpering with fright,
the muffled passage of another, coaxed
with promises, down enforced aisles, bound by
vocabulary’s sight. Terrible child,
no light escaped the house of Morychos.
So how did you?
At nights, with flashlights,
we stayed up, mapping tangled vacations.
It wasn’t always hellish as it sounds.
We were kept kids, padlocked in battery
cages, our own best teachers, of tossed-off
certainties, known neighborhoods, and always
chasing some kind of slang. To spell the word
backwards, chop up and repurpose pieces,
or make the meaning opposite from what
it was. We traded jabs of pleasure in
the mottled darkness of his maze, tongues of
soft flesh. We rearranged worlds to make our
places.
What would your mother give to you
of time? Faded photos, hand-me-down jeans,
a crayon-drawn map of paradise, you were
a metaphor too well-worn for what you
became, true as, it feels ugly to be
ugly and the resolution offers
no resolution, just this hissing in
my ears, this chaos. Lay down in the dog
bog. Keep trying. Keep gashing out the lines,
edit twisting serpents from the narrative,
and trace the tattered logic left behind,
monster observing monster, overwrought
and double-blind.
History is the final
solution for you, so go, dissolve your words
in time. Let their bleached remains fortify
the temple, your descendants living down
the stupid crime. That’s what
religion was, at home, submission to
the uncomprehended solidarity of
teenage desire, or something like, romance.
On echinacea lawns, she dons glitter
bodysuits, writes parochial poetry
on freedom. We were such creators, in
our nascent phases, molding plastic limbs
to tether our volcanic bases.
I do
not want to go, I beg, don’t take me back.
In wept oceans let me clear the bitter
savor from my eyes. Picnics in real
places, manicures on brand, she painted party
faces, praising God for such justice
as could be found and leveraged there, in
shared maps of iron laces, corset-bound,
hound-hunted hallways exhumed from ancient
flavors of local reason, a child’s small
hand ghostly waving from the window like
a metronome. She swallowed blood and sand
to earn their graces.
Take words to it, I said,
and words were airplanes, it was time, and she
was ready. She heard rumors on the wind
of its disintegration, climbed a hill,
and saw it for herself: the metaphor had died.
The whole, wide world was failing beauty, spread
beneath her like a poem in multitudes,
legs-open bride. And still, she cried. She longed
for absolute intelligence of who
he was, of home, of houses on the street
and what they hide, of where the figure’s corpse
was buried, and what appetites for youth were
still fed and worshipped there.
Take care of it,
he said, and words were memories, to which
she had no scholarly reply. No house,
nor street belonged to her, no shoes or gowns
to pack in chests, but ashes and fresh-breath
mints lost in linings, crumpled tissues, all
forgotten reasons why. Because you were
unseen, you could escape the conflagration?
Not so, although, not too far off. Because
she took my parchment seeded in her and
bad wisdom gained, as blasphemy of sight,
enlightened predation.
If words be fire,
then seek us in my gold and burning bower:
a clown is a bad child with adult power.
//
(About.)
To the alien, from another side. // Earth used to be the most beautiful place.
You could go running, under-leaf, through waist-deep tangled-grass jungle, wondering about snakes but not stopping because you had lost something in there, your heart breaking along fault lines in egg shells of worry and the impossibility of searching this dense pocket of hiding. The sharp limits of eyes. (It could start to rain and the drops, clear pinpoints and gashes on your naked arms, would feel body-temperature, not quite cool.) You would give birth to yourself, clambering out from staggered layers of green into a rice field, shifting pale to yellow, (footsteps uneven in cracking, caked mud, swaying in) needle-soft fibers cascading with grain. A sea of it. (It could start pouring, but the heavy, like wind-whipped-metal, grey holds.) Do you go left, right, forward into the field, or back to the jungle? (Ok, good choice. Turn to page 56.)
Words come from behind you, you don’t understand those, but fearful fluttering heartbeats, you do. From underneath places, trembling invisibles look back, lines of sight never meeting, from too many directions. You never held what happened, there. Life was snuffed out in missed-crossings, disappeared, or worse, waited past the faltering light, as if to be found again, hoping but knowing, skin and memory growing thin and colder, until heart stopped. It gave up, it was over, but then, you were found. A strange struggle, distracting but home again, having made plans that seem irrelevant, at this point. Washed a sink full of dishes. Sat on the floor, scratching stray sentences in dust. It would be dark, but not raining, and anyway, you would be under the solid wood floor of another world, with footsteps relying heavily on the grammar of your (earthy) answer.
Somebody who loved you might bring you food that was soft and crunchy and salty and sweet. And a lit stick of honeyed incense. Parts of you would fall back in right places. You could remove clothes, find yourself misshapen, and step into a hot shower under pitch-navy sky. Becoming twin bodies, ocean and sorrow in a breathy coccoon against deep space. I would work my fingers into your scalp, and medicinal smells of sudsy substances would rinse off in slippery streams to either side of your (kissed) face. Scrub around ears. You could be clean. (And the miracle of that.) You could put on clean clothes. You could slip between clean sheets underneath a comforter blanket that was the perfect thickness for this night’s chill, with just enough weight to let you feel, well, enough. Plus a cat, on your legs. Yes, cats were amazing. You could cover your eyes, and drift off, as a warm hand slipped softly into yours. Everything that was lost, would be home, would be dreamt or forgotten, singing or held, would be tucked under feathers, bed scattered with blossoms, and the waning crescent would disappear into the better side of night.
One felt gratitude, and mistook it for fear. That is how beautiful Earth was. We couldn’t contain the joy it put into us, so we turned it upside-down, into fear.
How Not to Break
Σωκράτης: καλῶς γάρ, ὦ ἑταῖρε, λέγει.
Socrates: Beautifully said, fellow.
//
People forget the absolute confusion it would throw us into. Our poor hearts. To be flirted with by Socrates!
Everyone reacted in his own way. There were puppies, pitbulls and poodles among us, Siamese cats, golden retrievers, kosher beef hotdogs, poisonous spiders and slithering snakes, all electrified, burning cheeks, clammy hands, contemptuous coughs, eyes rolling exaggeratedly behind backs, tea-drinking, name-calling, note-taking, knowing looks, mistaken engagements, pregnant pauses, drunken outbursts, drunken confessions, drunken makeouts, sneaking sweets into pursed lips, so many petty jealousies you wouldn’t believe.
Backstabbing, frontstabbing, it got ugly, abusive. Nobody wanted to see himself like that. Some went abstract, algebraic, symbolic, tried to ignore it, tied their hands as they slept. It exhausted us all. Some dismissed her for it, pretended cute compliments were sarcastic slights, secret glances a lie, the multi-entendres a meaningless flourish, intellectual metaphor, performative bullshit, while sneaking behind bushes. Some named it irony, her beloveds and her beautifully saids, a great number of grown men turned theatrically, cartoonishly evil, sending pornography to professional inboxes, these are historical facts, they just broke.
From her simple, sweet flirtation: they broke.
The question was always, how not to break.
(Hold it together?) What does he want. (Does he want it from me?) What do I want. (Why do I want it?) Do I want to give. (Do I have what he wants?) Do I believe him. (Is it about sex?) The stimulation of bodies to pleasure, more pleasure, until lost in the pleasure. (Reforged in pleasure?) Is it empty or is it full. (It or me?) Am I safe or am I in danger. (Which is the one that holds me together?)
The heart becomes a gaping question.
After all, this is a rite of passage. Few of us pass. (Pass into what?) The beautiful is what we call it when someone just does.
//