anyways

I’m thinking a lot about dead people today. Mostly, I think about how many people have come before me, and how many will come after, and how every single one of them will die, and maybe people remember them and maybe they don’t, for good reasons and bad, and there’s tragedy in that.

There’s tragedy in loss, but there’s also tragedy living a life in mourning.

It can feel like a whirlwind, like a pit, like a maelstrom rising out of the earth below your feet.

And yet, we still must live. It’s a wonder anything survives, for any length of time. The only joy is in childhood.

Target: 1500 words
Written: 1504 words, short story: Skeleton Park

Read: The Shooting Party, Anton Chekhov
Comics: Fables: The Wolf Among Us 21-24
Music: 23 Live Sex Acts, Against Me!

so yesterday was weird, eh?

I’m not religious by any means, but I do believe in a realistic spirituality.

There’s more in heaven and earth and all that. Of all of the religions I’ve studied, Taoism seems the most logical and least formal, as well as the most in line with my beliefs.

Buddhism is, as well, but there are formalities and sexism and dogma with that, which are all things I try and stay away from.

Meditation is something I do; not a formal belief system that requires me to behave a certain way.

Ursula Leguin inspired me to study more into the Tao; that last contained notes I made on the opening passage.

I thought I might share them over time. People can bite back, discuss, suggest, casually realign my thought process by pointing out where I’m mistaken, what I’ve missed, or perspectives I haven’t discovered yet.

Personally, I love that.

Perspective and presence are what it’s all about, really.

All that is good – empathy, compassion, the enjoyment of life – stems from such things.

And who knows what’s beyond it?

Target: 1500 words
Written: 817 words, comic: The Stuff 5

Read: The Broom Of The System, David Foster Wallace
Comics: Fables 141-143, Fairest 27
Music: Veni, Vidi, Vicious, The Hives (FUCK.  YEAH.)

taoing

Mitchell:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

LeGuin:

The way you can go
isn’t the real way.
The name you can say
isn’t the real name.

Heaven and earth
begin in the unnamed;
name’s the mother
of the ten thousand things.

So the unwanting soul
sees what’s hidden,
and the ever-wanting soul
sees only what it wants.

Two things, one origin,
but different in name,
whose identity is mystery.
Mystery of all mysteries!
The door to the hidden.

Feng/English:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

Legge:

The Dao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Dao.
The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name.
(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth;
(conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things.
Always without desire we must be found,
if its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development takes place, it receives the different names.
Together we call them the mystery.
Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful.

Susuki:

The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason.
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The Unnamable is of heaven and earth the beginning.
The Namable becomes of the ten thousand things the mother.
Therefore it is said: “He who desireless is found
The spiritual of the world will sound.
But he who by desire is bound
Sees the mere shell of things around.”
These two things are the same in source but different in name.
Their sameness is called a mystery.
Indeed, it is the mystery of mysteries.
Of all spirituality it is the door.

Goddard:

The Dao that can be understood cannot be the primal, or cosmic, Dao, just as an idea that can be expressed in words cannot be the infinite idea.
And yet this ineffable Dao was the source of all spirit and matter, and being expressed was the mother of all created things.
Therefore not to desire the things of sense is to know the freedom of spirituality; and to desire is to learn the limitation of matter.
These two things spirit and matter, so different in nature, have the same origin. This unity of origin is the mystery of mysteries, but it is the gateway to spirituality.

Notes:

Ironic how close this was to how Jay and I used to talk about nothing. You can’t describe nothing; the second you do, it becomes something. And yet, we all know what nothing is.

I’m not sure I like the darkness within darkness; it’s poetic, but Leguin’s mystery within mystery keeps the amorphous ethereal nature of it clear. I like Leguin’s version better here; Mitchell’s the name is the thing is too mystic.

The unwanting see the mystery because they’ve realized it’s not something that can be had, and yet, is everything; we both simultaneously can’t possess it, and yet, it’s part of everything. That’s the mystery, and it’s real.

When you think about where everything comes from… and how it got there; it’s analogous to Amatka, where things have to be named to keep form or they all fall back into the formlessness of the base element of creation.

All but our selves in that case, but in reality, we too, are a consequence of the Unmanifested. We are the named things, like everything around us. Only the unnamed, unmanifested, whatever, is not, nor could it be, because then, like nothing, it would be something. And yet, it’s everything.

The Feng-English translation is more cryptic, but I like that there’s not quite the same stigma on ever desiring as the Mitchell or Leguin versions. After all, desire is not necessarily bad. Mitchell and Leguin seem to suggest with their translation that if you’re desiring, you can’t see the Tao (the path, the way). You are somehow lesser than, more unenlightened.

The Feng-English translation is more straightforward; the two do not preclude each other. Desiring and seeing the manifestations (things as they are) are just part of it. Desireless, you see the mystery within a mystery, the darkness within darkness, (also, things as they really are), another part of it, that can connect you to the whole, not forgetting that the whole also includes desire and manifestation.

This is the key, the gate. When Leguin calls it the Aleph, she is not wrong.

Legge projects too much in trying to find rhymes; his version sounds more dictatorial, more of a mandate than a mystery. Like, you MUST be undesiring if you want any hope of finding the path, the way. Of finding the Tao.

But the Tao is everywhere and everything; its manifestations are not forever unchanging. They change, it’s all part of it. It’s all Tao, and that’s the kind of the point. Dropping the desire for it to be something specific is where one can get the full picture – that’s what undesiring gets you. But that Tao is in a diamond as it is in a lump of coal, as it is in us. It is all manifestation, all Tao. We accept it as it is to see that.

Mystery of mysteries again, in Susuki, though the idea of Reason being the analog for the Way is like Rand redux, and so, not exactly much of a thought for me. We’ve all seen how that’s worked out.

Selfishness as virtue? It was practically begging to be co-opted by the truly greedy to justify all their shitty behaviour, while missing the point entirely of an independent mind. Logic would not surely avoid every man for himself.

Anyway, outside the point here.

I like Susuki’s note about being bound by desire seeing only the shell; he brings it back to completeness by noting it’s all the same source.

Again, the rhyming. I somehow doubt that’s in the original.

I don’t like Goddard’s version of putting all understanding of Tao beyond our reach (because it’s not; it just can’t be expressed). I do like his use of word ineffable, and I love the idea that “being expressed was the mother of all created things”.

Like there’s this great thing behind the thing, not of the thing, under and through it, all around it, it is it itself, and when it is expressed, it births everything we see. It’s a joyful thought. I also adore the idea that in our desire for things, we learn the limitations of matter. Each is only a piece of the whole, and therefore limited, and yet, being of the whole, entirely infinite.

Such is the Tao.

Target: 1500 words
Written: 695 words, comic: The Stuff #4

Read: The Robber Bridegroom, Eudora Welty
Comics: Fairest 24-26, Fables 140
Music: 20/20 Division, Anti-Flag

why are some things so bad?

Like this insanely bad commercial for Tim Hortons (which admittedly, is awful at basically everything).

How does something get that bad?

We talk about the human condition, and human potential, which I’ve been thinking about a lot lately because of The Stuff, and I think…

How is that someone’s potential? To make a fucking TERRIBLE commercial with an AWFUL jingle for BAD food? That’s what you chose for your life?

Fuck, man. I know I’m no great shakes, but shit. I’m not I-make-ads-that-the-MOST-mediocre-can-look-down-on bad.

Right?

Target: 1400 words
Written: 495 words, comic: The Stuff 3

Read: Full Catastrophe Living, Jon Kabat-Zinn
Comics: Fables 128-129, Fairest 14-15
Music: June 26, 1999, Metro/Smart Bar, Local H

for a writer, i don’t write good

Or rather, I think I write well, okay at best, but I rarely know what I want to say. I read other books with these incredible telling details or unbelievable insights into the human condition and I think, why not me?

What am I saying that’s not been said before?

I suppose there’s something to be said on saying something that has been said in a different way, and different voices reaching different people in different ways, but yeah.

I always wanted to be original. Unique. At the vanguard of something new.

But I don’t know what. It’s the essence of constrained – having something inside of you building like a new big bang, but being so essentially weak of spirit as to be unable to unleash it into the void.

And that’s what out there – void.

No one reads my shit because I don’t promote my shit. I’m Holden Caulfield, if he lived now and on social media. If he thought he hated phonies before, man, wait until he gets a load of Instagram and Twitter.

He’d be dead before the day was out.

I was eased into it, and despite knowing these are the tools I require to be successful in today’s age, I am increasingly convinced that social media needs to be phased out of my life, and out of existence entirely, if we are to survive.

Otherwise, none of us may last the day.

Target: 1400 words
Written: 1476 words, comic: The Stuff #1

Read: Secrets And Lies: Digital Security In A Networked World, Bruce Schneier
Comics: Fables 103-106
Music: August 17, 1990, Palladium, Hollywood, Nirvana

we are not who we think we are

It’s common in Taoism, Buddhism, etc., to assume that the mind is not who we are, that we are something beyond our conditioning, our monkey minds, the trappings of our social circles and belief systems.

That there is something, someone beneath all that, so completely in tune with the universe that it can, if we can fall back into it, blow away all the bullshit of our selves and lives with a gentle breath, to reveal the bodhisattva at the centre of it all.

I believe this to be largely true. I’m not a religious man, but when I’ve sat and peeled layers, letting each go in turn…

I’m in there. I’m at the centre, not matter how rotten the layers get as we head toward the outside of me.

And that centre is everything.

Target: 1400 words
Written: 2105 words, comic: The Stuff #1

Read: The Catcher In The Rye, J.D. "DawggyDawg" Salinger
Comics: Cinderella: Fables Are Forever 4-6, Fables 102
Music: April 10, 1990, Blind Pig, Ann Arbor, Nirvana (yeah, I got the bootlegs)

perspective

I always miss the point.

I don’t know why. It can be staring me stark in the face from six inches away and I’ll crane my neck to look around it, to see what’s on the other side.

I guess it’s a matter of perspective. I spent a lot of years with none, and now, to rectify that, I’ve gone whole hog the other direction.

The other side of the road. The alternate view. The real truth – yours, mine and reality, from as many angles as I can scope.

And it’s blinding.

The funny thing is, this isn’t about overanalysis. A lot of people might interpret this as second-guessing or lack of confidence or whatever, and maybe to some extent, that’s the case.

But mostly it’s about being burned, over and over again, by a lack of insight.

Like right now.

I’m about to fire an asshole, over the accusation that he touched a woman’s bum. He sits in front of me, all hang-dogged in his expression, his big brown eyes threatening tears. His hands are folded in his lap, and they fidget as only the guilty can. Or the innocent, who don’t know why they’re there, but know it’s bad.

The assumption is guilt, but it could go either way. Would he protest more if he were innocent or guilty? Would I be able to tell the difference? Tone of voice, waver, urgency. Would I recognize crocodile tears? Doth he protest too much?

Most of upper management wanted him gone the same day without even cursory examination. A show of strength. For the females in the group, a show of solidarity. For the men, a desire not to show sympathy for the acts of an accused molester.

It’s all optics. Political correctness and “action” as a substitute for facts and discovery. Talking points, the surrogate, in the place of judgment, made in bluster about the ‘right thing’; in reality, about not getting sued or cancelled. Protect the bottom line, at all costs.

Me?

I can’t let it go without perspective. I believe that we start neutral and ask questions and work toward the truth. That starting with an assumption of guilt predisposes us to dismiss evidence that suggests otherwise, and limits our desire to seek out the truth.

Starting with an assumption of innocence can do the same. It’s not terribly fair to the victim, especially if they are a victim. It’s hard to feel good about accusing someone who’s been wronged of exaggeration or deceit.

On the other hand, if they are lying… I know it’s not popular to assume they are, but it does happen. More often than I think we care to admit. You’ve met people, right? They lie.

Of course, if you have to start with one or the other, innocence is the way to go. Better to believe in the inherent goodness of people than not.

Anyway, there’s this fucker, running around, wanton hands on the behinds of unsuspecting women, or so his accusers would have us believe, without examination or skepticism. I choose investigation. Questions. Find the truth so the truth can out.

It wasn’t a popular decision, but like I said, I need perspective. I’ve been told how unfair this is to the victim, that she should be listened to with unwavering belief, as though she’s God, and we’re the Catholic faithful.

But I’m agnostic.

If we’re about to destroy a man; perhaps a suspension of all disbelief is not the best method to do so. After all, the guy is married. He has two children, both toddlers. If found guilty, he has to go home to his wife and children and tell them he lost his job – for sexually assaulting a woman. Maybe he lies to them, but there’s lots of mutual friends; the truth will out eventually. It always does.

And then what?

Does his wife forgive him? Does she leave him? Does she take the children? Do the children grow up with angry, divorced parents or without a father because of one unwanted hand on someone’s behind?

Does he lose his house, his car, his family? Does he end up broke and homeless, on the street, shunned by friends and family alike, unhireable by any company that doesn’t want to risk a potential rapist in their midst?

A life destroyed. For a hand on a butt.

Multiple lives destroyed. Collateral damage. Innocent lives destroyed. Children’s lives.

For a hand on a butt.

The woman will go on. She’ll forget about this in a week or two, when things settle, and she’ll go back to her life in her cubicle with her friends and her new boss.

Oh yeah. Did I mention he’s her boss?

Yeah. Super shitty.

If legit.

Anyway, the woman will go back to friends and family and work and maybe some other man’s hand on her ass, and chances are, little will change for her. She might get creeped out at the thought of this guy if it comes up. She might be kind of skeeved.

He, on the other hand, may be on the street. He may lose everything, while the extent of her trauma is an uncomfortable memory, from time to time.

Proportion becomes a word to think about.

Proportion and perspective.

While the masses howl for blood, I ask questions. Compare and contrast. Weigh options. Consider motive, as well as action.

Who brought the charge?

The woman did. She was pushed into it by her boyfriend who also works in the space, and by his boss. She told us as much.

That’s interesting.

In her interview, she openly admitted to flirting with the accused and not actually wanting to speak with HR. Her boyfriend insisted.

The boyfriend has a history with other women in the building. He’s taken them to HR more than once to resolve some petty dispute, rarely work related. At times, he’s used the threat of discipline and termination to keep an ex-lover away from him, even as he texted them for a booty call that night. He’s used HR to separate lovers he didn’t want to know about each other. He’s promised no more contact with former flames, only to re-engage immediately. More than once, the full story was shrouded in obfuscation.

Motive. Past tactics.

Half-truth for revenge on possible rival?

What about the boyfriend’s boss, who backed the allegation, though not a direct witness?

Similar rival. The accused was involved with a friend of his. Both were married. Suspicions of emotional cheating. A lot of texts and flirting. The boyfriend’s boss, then only co-worker, was livid with moral outrage, despite his similar behaviour with another employee, also married. The boyfriend’s boss isn’t exactly known for his ability to keep his pen out of the company ink. Indeed, the boys’ club, locker room bullshit is how he got promoted in the first place.

Motive again. Revenge is an aphrodisiac.

Alternate perspective. Assume good will.

Boyfriend genuinely upset about sexual assault on girlfriend. Girlfriend hesitant to report, due to stigma or concerns about backlash or believability. Boyfriend leverages boss. Boom. Human Resources.

Justice.

Or…

Motives of jealousy and general dislike, an accuser uncertain about making accusation, who actively admits to both flirting and enjoying said flirtation. Exaggeration or intentional deception?

Misread signals? Overzealous overture?

Inappropriate act.

Perhaps the word proportion needs to return.

Re-assignment? Demotion? Discipline? Isolation? Suspension?

Boyfriend makes threats of police involvement. The issue is being pushed. I can feel the twine pull tight around my hands. Still.

Still.

Innocent until proven guilty.

And if guilty? To what degree? Will his accusers laugh to themselves, smug and satisfied, as my judgment gives their drama legitimacy? What if their drama is false? What if it’s not true?

The man’s on the street. Dead in a gutter. Victim of the drink.

Or maybe none of that. Maybe his wife forgives him with open arms, knows he’s innocent, and he’s employed in days, if not hours.

Like I said. Perspective. Knowledge. Speculation. Too many ways to look at it. Could be the guy’s a real creep. Definite possibility. Hasn’t come across that way in the past, but he is over-friendly, with everyone.

So many ways to see it. So much information.

I’ve always been jealous of those who charge forward, heedless of reality.

A witness comes out. Heavyset girl, teammate of the plaintiff. Best friend. Says she saw the whole thing.

Funny. We were told there were no witnesses. Plaintiff versus defendant, alone, in the library with the candlestick. He said. She said.

The witness is the best friend. Convenient, but no way to refute.

There’s a whiff in the air.

But here we are.

With this guy.

This fucking guy.

The only thing we can do hangs in the air. And my time is running out.

I lean in, my fingers crossed on the table before me. My voice, laden with gravitas.

“I’m sorry, son. We have no choice but to let you go…”

Target: 1400 words
Written: 504 words, short story: Perspective

Read: The Catcher In The Rye, J.D. Salinger
Comics: Fables 101, Cinderella: Fables Are Forever 1-3
Music: February 11, 1990, Cactus Club, San Jose, Nirvana

we are all going to die

I mean, probably. Well, definitely. The question is really when and how.

Is it when Trump starts the end of the world? Is it a pandemic exploding through us because morons think vaccinations are somehow worse than the disease they’re designed to protect against?

Is it climate change?

When I write, I’ve often dreamed of it as being read still hundreds of years hence (I imagine that’s true of many artists). At this point though, hurtling toward climate collapse at least, I’d be happy if we still had books at all in twenty years. Or if anyone was around to read them.

Maybe someday, aliens will settle our barren, self-destroyed plant, and find those written and using supercomputers we haven’t dreamed of, translate them and think, Jesus, what a bunch of fucking assholes.

And then they blew it all up.

Damn, dirty apes.

(A story, as told by a fatalist, using cultural references aliens probably won’t get, because I don’t think we ever beamed Charlton Heston to space. We are the monkeys, man! The monkeys are us!)

Target: 1400 words
Written: 1071 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: Tesla: Man Out Of Time, Margaret Cheney
Comics: Fables 40-43
Music: 06.27.01 Peel Session, The Strokes

truth telling

I mean, I know we all think we know the truth, but the reality is that the truth is what it is and we are not always aware of all of the aspects of it. Multiple things can be true at any given time.

I have not lived an exemplary life. I’ve lied, I’ve cheated (my family and all my friends banned me from playing Monopoly) and probably worse, if I’m honest about it.

I am still not entirely honest with myself and the people around me, because I feel rejection. I have issues with insecurity and depression.

None of these things means I’m a horrible person by necessity, but neither do they make me an exemplary one.

Truth and perspective are the two things I chase most in my life, and as I get older and open myself up to that more, instead of living in safely comfortable fictions and denial, I find the truest thing I know is that truth and perspective are often not in accordance, but more of one inevitably creates more of the other.

Enough perspective and truth is revealed; how could it not be?

Truth knocks us out of our fictions, our blind spots; it provides perspective where none may have existed.

More truth. More perspectives. These are the only things that matter.

There is truth. There is perspective.

These things are not mutually exclusive. But one perspective, held without truth…

Well, there’s the rub, isn’t it?

Target: 1400 words
Written: 791 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: Prozac Nation, Elizabeth Wurtzel
Comics: Fables 5-8
Music: Working Class Hero, Green Day (by way of John Lennon)

the system is breaking down

Everywhere. Every system.

What will come of the wreckage?

Target: 1300 words
Written: 1205 words, novel: Bad Neighbours

Read: Dead To The World, Charlaine Harris
Comics: Team Youngblood 5-6, Bloodstrike 8, Brigade v2 7
Music: Whip-Smart, Liz Phair