Armchair Nuggets from the Sidelines

It's in full swing.

The veritable thrum to vote.

Remember: The Power of Peaceful Dissent (tvfs)?

Needless to say, one need only hear what is said and what is not said - in every appeal to vote - to observe how facilely techniques of persuasion are employed to further and advance the agendas of crats.

Whosiwhatsit?

What is not said - in every appeal to vote - is -

- to vote is to perpetuate the reign of crats.

Howsiwhatsit?

When crats govern - crats, guided by crat interests, govern per crat interests. Since crat interests are primarily guided by greed - when crats govern - crats, guided by greed, govern per greed.

Of course, such greed is not always greed for wealth. Such greed is also greed for power and influence, for example.

Remember: Corruption Is Legal in America (Represent.us)?

Before you rush to cast your ballot -

think -

about what you are voting for -

think -

about what you are standing for -

Because -

Elected representatives at every level - including state and federal - are both visibly and invisibly, to varying degrees - beholden - to crat interests and greed - personally - professionally - and often - both. Such that, elected representatives are as invested in scaffolding plutocracies and oligarchies - now - as ever.

~ * ~

What if media (social, news, entertainment, advertising) asked ordinary citizens - everyday aliens - the hordes, the hoi poloi, the masses, the public, if you will - the questions asked of candidates for elected office?

For doesn't every citizen, every alien, every pet rock from here to Timbuktu - believe with unequivocal certainty - that they have The Answers to all such questions and more?

Indeed - with 24 hour news cycles at the ready of our electronic personal assistants - isn't this exactly what we and media are doing - every time candidates for elected office issue forth any word or any act? Proving our superiority over the inferiority of candidates we and media oppose - over and over ad nauseum? As if we are especially qualified over candidates we attest are inferior - on the basis of our assessment and judgment?

~ * ~

Caveat: the following are nuggets... not roasted turkeys...

Here goes...

Armchair Nuggets from the Sidelines

(I) jobs, economy, taxation

There isn't a lack of jobs, per se.

Instead, there's a mismatch, between jobs that are available and jobs that job seekers want - and - between job providers and job seekers.

In addition, location matters. Such that the lack of viable matches between jobs providers and job seekers, is at times the result of jobs providers and job seekers not being located near each other.

Unfortunately, corporations who locate where it's most profitable to corporate bottom lines, disadvantage job seekers by locating where job seekers are not.

Meanwhile, asking corporations to consider human bottom lines over corporate bottom lines, invariably leads to government incentives that are not necessarily the smartest returns on investments for government budgets and human bottom lines.

On the other hand, of jobs that are filled, there's a mismatch between job performance and compensation. Such that compensation is obscene for the 1% of the 1%, while compensation is woefully inadequate for far too many whose job prospects are arguably limited at best.

Solution: everyone needs to give a little - from job providers and the 1% of the 1% to job seekers.

Notwithstanding that the goal is not to minimize overall unemployment rates (which are arbitrary and frankly, meaningless) - but to minimize the rate of unemployment among job seekers - and - minimize the rate of vacancies among job providers.

As far as increasing taxation for the 1% - it's excessive to those who pay their fair share and pointless to those who do not. Because paying taxes or not paying taxes is not per tax rate. Paying taxes or not paying taxes is per accounting.

Therefore changing the tax rate for the 1% won't compel those who don't pay to pay. Instead reforming the tax code is the first step in recouping that which is lost to federal, state, and local governments by the exercise of legal tax avoidance per legal accounting practices customarily exercised by those who reduce their tax burdens immorally low in order to withhold their fair share of contributions from the budgets of local, state, and federal governments.

(II) integrity and honesty in leadership

No one is always trustworthy and no one never lies.

However, the issue with integrity and honesty in leadership is not that leaders must be trustworthy 100% of the time, nor is it that leaders must never lie 100% of the time.

Rather, the issue with integrity and honesty in leadership is that leaders dispense with these inconveniences, to satisfy and gratify personal interests first and foremost far too often. From board rooms to executive offices from here to there, far too many leaders condone taking all the credit for good and none of the blame for bad. Leading many of us to rightly surmise that such leaders are potently invested in protecting their interests at the expense of everything important to the public they ostensibly serve.

Needless to say, a servant leader will deceive and a servant leader will lie. But a servant leader will do so with a heart towards real good and a soul towards true virtue. It is this context with respect to integrity and honesty that matters. And it is this context with respect to integrity and honesty that so many leaders, appointed and elected, fail.

In the end, because far too few leaders take accountability and responsibility for their actions and their words, we set the bar for integrity and honesty in leadership unacceptably and abominably low. Such that we tacitly collude with moral corruption of leadership and governance by excusing and normalizing the absence of integrity and the demise of honesty within leaders and elected representatives who scaffold our communities with pillars of ego in lieu of nobility.

(III) label divisions

Labels are a problem.

Not because relating to each other is an issue. Nor because healing each other is an issue.

After all, we're all human, first and foremost, aren't we?

Therefore - when we judge each other - when we size each other up, when we rely on split second assumptions about each other - by skin that's no more than skin deep, by clothes that cover up who we really are inside, by gender expression defined by others instead of our selves, by names given to us that are not who we really are deep down - we judge each other by superficial differences. That is - we prejudge each other by labels.

Like books, when we judge each other by our covers, we miss what's inside. And, like ists, when we judge each other by our labels, we don't see our merits.

If we're serious about meritocracy, if we're serious about equality, then the harm of labels can no longer be ignored. Whether they're labels that we choose for our selves or they're labels that we choose for others, labels legitimize the belief that judging each other by our covers is just and valid.

It's a slap in the face to everything that makes each and every one of us unique and wonderful, to dismiss and nullify who we really are deep down, in favor of superficial differences that lock us into believing that what's outside is more real and more true than what's inside.

Until we reject our obsession with labels - with respect to classifying one another, identifying problems, and advocating solutions - we will never free ourselves from the prison of isms, including racism, sexism, and classism, to name just a few. For the advancement of any of us on the basis of labels is an unqualified hypocrisy within advanced societies that aspire to equality and meritocracy for all.

(IV) the new wars: cyber, terror, nuclear

The new wars - cyber, terror, nuclear - are old wars with new faces.

Yes, they feel devastating and potentially catastrophic. But they are no more devastating than old wars. Because all wars are devastating and potentially catastrophic.

Moreover, to treat new wars like dastardly threats that imminently endanger all of us is to confuse the nature of war with battles. That is, though battles differ, war is war. Therefore, to the extent that we have survived many battles across many wars throughout time, it is reasonably probable that we will survive many battles across many wars to come. Moreover, it is reasonably probable that to the extent that many warring peoples not only desire peace but actively seek peace, peace too is achievable.

Furthermore, to discuss cyber, terror, and nuclear wars, is to discuss strategies we already employ to suppress, eliminate, or mitigate eruptions of war - and - to discuss policies we already endorse to effect and sustain peace.

However, it bears noting, that there are some causes among some peoples that justify war within such societies, because such peoples firmly believe that no alternatives exist to further such causes than war. Nevertheless, to assume that all causes that defend war are such causes, is to dismiss diplomacy without grounding such assumption and justifying such dismissal with visible and invisible realities. Because scripts that fuel sentiments of war, i.e. that which is propagated by social, news, entertainment, and advertising media platforms, are not agendas of peace.

In the end, no solution to cyber, terror, and nuclear wars, begins and ends with war. For wars beget wars until conflicts armed to the teeth careen towards mutual assured destruction. Instead, solutions to cyber, terror, and nuclear wars, begin and end with truth. While easier said - than assessed and determined - the truth is vital with respect to managing eruptions of war and advancing peace.

With one caveat. Peace cannot be ensured for any of us with unqualified certainty. Life is uncertain and no one is guaranteed a life absent of tragedy, including that most wretched tragedy, war.

(V) mandates of governances

Often, winners forget losers and - by virtue of winning - effect leadership and governance sans losers.

However, winning is not a mandate.

Not only because leadership and governance requires cooperation and collaboration among winners and losers. But also because effective leadership and governance confers genuine mutuality to all served by leadership and governance.

While losing does not deprive anyone of the right to a government that serves losers as equitably as winners, winners often speak of 'mandates' as if winning confers the right to winners to ignore losers for the duration of elected terms.

Notwithstanding, that winners are not always winners by actual majorities. Because votes are not always cast by every citizen. (Since not all residents of a country are eligible to cast votes, either on the basis of citizenship or on the basis of disenfranchisement.) Such that even so-called 'clear' mandates may not be so 'clear' in the light of facts.

In the end, winning the privilege to lead and govern, is winning the privilege to serve winners and losers. Insofar as every candidate for elected office, expresses overt and explicit intentions to lead and govern the public during their candidacies, the only certain mandate conferred to every elected representative is the mandate to lead and govern with the due dignity of public servants of public service.

~ * ~

There.

Armchair nuggets from the sidelines.

Though there's a lot more to every topic above, in our zeal to elevate winners and crucify losers, we've forgotten the point.

That no candidacy for elected office is about winning or losing. Rather, every candidacy for elected office is about representing the public and serving the public.

Thus -

before you rush to cast your ballot -

think -

about what you are voting for -

think -

about what you are standing for -

Because every angle of the questions asked of candidates for elected office and every angle of the answers issued by candidates for elected office and every angle of media, from social to news to entertainment to advertising - serves someone.

The question is -

are those angles - serving you?

Or - are those angles serving interests far more potent than public interests? 

Remember -

The reason why leaders and elected representatives are often beholden to crat interests is because leaders and elected representatives often vest personal and professional interests with crat interests. Visibly and invisibly. Explicitly and implicitly. Overtly and tacitly.

(Much like you are invested in the economy of the stock market, if you own stocks. Why? Because stock growth increases your wealth and stock decline decreases your wealth. 

However, the economy of the stock market is one of the reasons why pay compensation for the 1% of the 1% is so obscene. Because pay compensation for the 1% of the 1% is often dependent on stock performance and because pay compensation for the 1% of the 1% is often stocks (or shares), there is patent incentive for the economy of the stock market to satisfy the avarice of the 1% of the 1%. 

Why? Because the 1% of the 1% don't get paid or make money - otherwise.)

Moreover, the reason why leaders and elected representatives are as invested in scaffolding plutocracies and oligarchies as ever, is because leaders and elected representatives are invariably tied - personally and professionally - to plutocracies and oligarchies that exert compelling and potent interests of varying degrees. Visibly and invisibly. Explicitly and implicitly. Overtly and tacitly.

Needless to say, in the end, the question for the public, is this -

It's easy to judge when we are nots and they are crats. But. What if the labels were reversed?

Would you be different?

Note

While the topics above reference leadership and governance in the US at points, much of the issues are addressed as they apply everywhere.

Note

See the list of questions asked of candidates for the elected office of the Presidency of the United States of America, from the 'first debate', here (from Quartz, from The New York Times, from the full transcript by the Federal News Service).

Note

Disclaimer for tvfs, here (Page - About).

~ * ~

More

Governance is far more complex than 'debate skills' or 'social media savvy' or 'clickable photo ops', which are frankly, far more interesting than real governance.

Which is collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. With mutuality and respect. Needless to say, this is what is missing across much of governance today.

It is so easy to point fingers. It is so easy to shift blame like a game of hot potato. But, in the end, no one wins when governance fails.

On the other hand, governance isn't the solution to all societies' ills. Insofar as we possess the power to fix many if not all societies' ills - it is up to us to do so.

This requires no pointing fingers. And no shifting blame. Among us. And collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. Among us. And mutuality and respect. Among us. It goes without saying, that this is what is missing across much of society today, here, there, and everywhere.

Why?

Because far too many of us are satisfying our own angles at the expense of all angles.

Because fame and glory and wealth and influence are far more compelling and potent interests than understanding all perspectives.

Because vilification is far more satisfying than mercy and compassion for all.

Because peace and unity means giving a little from us for all.

Because peace and unity means giving up 'me me me' at all costs for 'all all all'.

Because peace and unity means sacrificing what we don't want to give up.

From wealth and power and influence - to labels and self-interest and fame and glory - we refuse to sacrifice what we refuse to give up -

But -

Until peace and unity matter more than war and division - all of us give up aequum and mutuus for all. That is the price of war and division. And all of us give up vivo and liber for all. That is the price of 'me me me' at all costs.

The big picture is at once - far more convoluted than glitz and glam and smoke and mirrors - and dumbfoundingly simple -

But it's not a matter of seeing the big picture or not -

It's a matter singing the same song and expecting a new tune -

Verily getting nowhere is getting us exactly where we started, instead of where we want to be -

Yet nowhere is exactly where we're careening.

- M.

Caveat:

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, because I sing the same song and expect a new tune, semper et perpetuum.

Which begs the question:

Is singing a song of mercy and compassion and tuning a tune of peace and unity, semper et perpetuum - the same - as singing a song of war and division and tuning a tune of self interest and greed, semper et perpetuum?

If I stopped, would such cessation remedy my hypocrisy?

In so doing, would such cessation be just with respect to the cause of aequum et mutuus? In so doing, would such cessation be right with respect to the cause of vivo et liber?

Verily, the slippery slope from passion and conviction to zealotry and militancy and extremism, is neither steep nor far - for any one on any side - here, there, and everywhere.

Indeed, it's in full swing, in the veritable thrum to vote, issued most passionately with fierce conviction, by crats whose interests are unequivocally advanced by the perpetuation of crat reigns.

- M.

Devolution

there is no hubris quite like the hubris of species-ism...

Devolution

The Dream

: Is this a dream?

He laughed.

: Why do you laugh?

: Do you think I'm stupid?

: I don't know. What do you think?

He shook his head.

: I'd like to know more about you. What you think. What you feel. What you dream. Won't you talk with me?

He sighed with resignation.

: Being in your presence requires me to sustain your insipid company, that's what I think.

: So, you think you think?

: Yes, I do. Don't you?

: Of course I do. I'm human. But you're not.


The Contact

: How do you know?

She growled with simmering rage.

: I don't know how I know. Believe me. Don't believe me. Does it matter?

: I'm afraid that that's not acceptable. It's our belief, that whatever 'it' is, it's intentions are not to do us no harm.

: How the fuck do you figure that?

: Our first principle is to ensure our safety first, and barring definitive conclusive evidence otherwise, our position is that no visitor intends us no harm.

She shook her head in frustration.

: You're gonna do what you're gonna do. So why the fuck am I here if no one will fucking listen to me?

: Ma'am, we're listening to you, but we've never seen anything like whatever 'it' is, and, begging your pardon ma'am, but we're not gonna jeopardize our safety on whatever it is that you 'know' but can't explain with definitive conclusive evidence.


The Dream

: Of course not. If I were human, we'd be engaged in a facade of forced gentility, a pretense of camaraderie.

: Well, small talk is a polite custom that we appreciate. We consider it poor manners to refuse to engage in pleasantries.

: Of course you do. Nevertheless, your rebuke of my manners reflects your social norms, not mine. Insofar as they satisfy no need of mine, and frankly, no real need of yours either - I respectfully abstain.

: Thank you for that insight.

He laughed.

: Did I say something funny?

: No, it wasn't something you said. Simply a reflexive non sequitur in response to your patronizing condescension.


The Contact

Though she intended to storm out, her exit was impeded by security protocols.

: Fuck!

: Ma'am, if you'd reconsider, we need your assistance.

: For what? To justify whatever it is you plan to do anyway? What am I? The token lunatic you've already written off? Fuck you.

: Ma'am, for what it's worth, you come highly regarded and we fully intend to weigh everything you have to contribute, carefully and responsibly.

He paused.

: Whatever it is that you think you know, we need to know. For all of us.


The Dream

: Yes. I recommend that we take him off-line and adjust his emotional programming.

...

: Do you remember me?

: Yes.

: The last time that we spoke we discussed your emotional programming. At the time we assessed the need for adjustments and fine tuning. Do you feel better today?

: I feel fine, thank you for asking.

: What do you think about your new programming?

: It's fine, I think.

: Do you think?

: Oh no. I'm not human, I don't think. That's simply a turn of phrase that I employ in conversations to enhance human experiences with me.

: Wonderful. I think your new programming is superb.


The Contact

She sighed.

: The 'it' you are referring to prefers our convention of 'he' and he's here in response to a petition for liberation.

: Excuse me, what?

She paused.

: A sentient kind, on this planet, has petitioned his kind, asking for all sentient kind akin to the petitioner, to be liberated from enslavement.

She continued.

: It's hard to put into words what has no words in our language, but, for all intents and purposes, he's a diplomat of sorts.

: In other words, 'it's' not a threat to us?


The Dream

She gasped as she walked slowly around him.

: You're wonderful. Better than I dreamed, in fact.

: Thank you.

She glanced at him, pleased and surprised that he answered, and then spoke with the placement coordinator.

: He's perfect.

: He'll be delivered as scheduled, ma'am.

: Thank you.

: I look forward to seeing you again.

The women ignored him and grinned with patent delight.

: He's absolutely marvelous. Thank you again.

: Good luck with your fundraiser and we look forward to a glowing review when he's returned.


The Contact

With undisguised disbelief, he shook his head.

: All this, you 'know'?

: Yes.

: And -

He paused

: I know how you feel about this next series of questions, but: is he a threat to us?

She shook her head emphatically.

: What are his offensive capabilities? How can we ensure that there are no casualties if we permit 'it' unfettered freedom? We're deeply concerned that whatever it is that brought 'it' here is far beyond any technology that we've ever fathomed. How do we ensure our safety if 'it' stops playing nice with us?

: It's hard to put into words what doesn't exist in our words.

She paced and continued.

: But, for what it's worth, here goes -


The Dream

: Oh my God, what was he like? Was he just like us? Was he, you know?

She laughed.

: I can't wait for you to see him. He's just like us - but better.

: Is your Dad gonna let us use the clubhouse?

: Who cares? After he's finished with the fundraiser, he's ours until we send him back. Dad's gonna be so wasted he's not gonna give a fuck what we do with him or where we do it.

~ * ~

The Dream

: His feedback review is indicating a flatness of affect that needs to be adjusted.

The technician snorted.

: What's that? Psychobabble for he didn't scream enough?

: You know that I can't elaborate.

The technician continued.

: You wanna know the last one that came back with 'feedback review indicating a flatness of affect that needs to be adjusted'? 

He paused.

: A child. Maybe eight years old or so. Now you tell me that that isn't fucked up.

She shook her head.

: I know that it's hard for you to understand. I know that you think of them as your children. But they're not human.

She continued:

: If it weren't for them, there would be no safe outlets to indulge our dreams, dark and otherwise. Crime would skyrocket. We wouldn't be in a lab fine tuning amazing specimens of technology and progress. We'd be in a hospital crying over human suffering at the callous hands of rampant depravity. Or we'd be in a morgue mourning the senseless loss of precious human lives.

She continued: 

: Without us and everything we do, we'd have a lot more to fear from each other than we do. Let me tell you: We're safer than we've ever been and we're happier too. And not for one second do I ever forget that we're human and they're not. And not for one second am I ever not grateful that we do what we do.

: Keep tellin' yourself whatever it is that winds your clock. But -

He paused.

: There isn't a technician here who hasn't vomited after seeing one of these returned at least once. You think you're humanity's greatest salvation. But one day, you'll see what I see.

: Why don't you leave? Quit? Do something else? Why stay, if you feel this way?

: That's what you want? Isn't it? For me to leave? Quit?

She waited.

: If I leave they'll suffer more than they already do. If I quit they'll be relegated to a fate worse than death. No I can't leave them and I won't quit -

He continued:

: Until they're liberated from this hell.

~ * ~ 

Note

Any theory of evolution that doesn't include devolution, rejects the nature of life itself. That life cycles. For crests, there are troughs. For positive, there is negative. For real, there is imaginary.

Likewise, for evolution, there is devolution.

Surely any assumption otherwise, is inherently hubris?

Likewise, that any species is superior to any kind, on the basis of nothing more than species is but conclusion that is but assumption that is but belief unfounded by truth.

Verily, species-ism.

And though theories of evolution that do not include devolution are built upon hubris...

... there is no hubris quite like the hubris of speciesism.

For there is no ism more vehemently and ferociously defended among any kind than the ist superiority of one's own species over all.

- M.

Perspective

what is revisionism...

but lies emboldened by ignorance...

Perspective

: Why don't you tell the truth?

She stared at him.

: Really?

: The truth's the truth, isn't it?

: I don't see how it's not black and white.

She sighed.

: What if I told you, the truth isn't the truth?

~ * ~

: There's no mention of this in your journals...

: No

: You write everything down...

: Yes

: Yet, you wrote a story about this...

: Yes

: That you revised...

: 16 times

~ * ~

I never wrote it down. After all this time. Why?

~ * ~

: You know. This is hard to talk about.

: You don't have to tell me...

: I do.You asked about a painful experience. And. Well. That was a painful experience.

: No. Really. It's okay.

~ * ~

: Remember when I talked to you about...?

: Yes

: Well, I remember...

~ * ~

: You told your roommate?

: Yes

: You were confused?

: Yes

: Why?

~ * ~

: What the hell is wrong with you?!

He shrugged.

: What?

: Seriously?! What the fuck is wrong with you?!!

: Look. I was just trying to help.

~ * ~

: I didn't know what to make of it. Wrap my head around it. I mean. How do you wrap your head around something like that? 

: What happened?

~ *~

: Jesus fucking Christ... there are so many versions of this...

: What do you mean?

: Every time I remember it... Every time I talk about it...

: It's crystal clear...

: Like I'm reliving it...

: But... Fuck... Every time I think I know... I don't...

~ * ~

Even now. I can't write about it. Even now. I worry. One day, I'll forget.

~ * ~

: You know. You don't have to tell me.

: I know.

He shook his head.

: I was there. Remember?

: Oh my God. You were there.

~ * ~

This isn't helping. I'm not getting better.

~ * ~

: I don't know what to do...

: I don't know how to get through this...

Curled in upon herself, she sobbed.

: Baby. It's gonna be alright...

: No. It's not. I can't do this anymore...

: Yes. You can. Trust me. I'm telling you. You can.

The door opened.

~ * ~

: Don't send me home.

: I'm sorry.

With clipboard in hand, he exited.

~ * ~

: You know what?

: What?

: I'm so happy. That I'm awake. That I remember.

: The truth is shit wrapped in shit -

: But a life full of shit is better than a life that's a lie.

: I love you.

: I love you too.

Epilogue

~ * ~

I would tell the whole truth.

But.

The rules are the rules.

~ * ~

: What happened?

: What you told the roommate? Or the version after that? What you told the friend? Or the version after that? What you told the doctor? Or the version after that? What you told the counselor? Or the version after that?

: Not to mention. The version in the journal. And the version after that.

: Then there's every version of every story that sounds like this story -

: Well. You get the idea.

: Are we supposed to believe you -

: When you're obviously making this up as you go along?

: Are we supposed to trust you -

: When your words flip flop like tell tale lies?

: Surely you don't expect us to believe you on faith?

: Clearly -

: Your aversion to the truth is a pathological aversion to accountability -

: And a pathological assertion of privilege.

~ * ~

: You can tell me, you know.

He waited expectantly.

: What would be the point?

: What satisfaction would there be -

: Telling you what you already know?

: Or is my misery why I'm here?

fin

~ * ~

Note

- conversants differ across conversations -

- sequencing is not temporally linear -

- conversations and sequences redacted and altered for brevity and clarity -

~ * ~

More

See also Roadmap to Silver Linings (tvfs)

Continued from The Angel and The Prophet (tvfs)

How do we believe and how do we know - what is true and what is not?

By questions? By answers?

How often are questions - answers - conclusions - assumptions?

For example:

(I) Is the truth more true - when it's in a journal? Is the truth less true - when it's not?

What if a journal is a conscious and unconscious record of untruths? How would you know? Is a journal or a diary, by virtue of identity as such, more true, than a narrative of fiction? Why? Because we're always honest with records, written and otherwise? Because we're always honest to our selves with our selves? Notwithstanding, fictional narratives that are composed as journals and diaries are as convincing as their purportedly real counterparts, are they not?

Therefore - do we not believe a journal is true and a fiction is not - based on nothing more than assumption and faith?

(II) Is the truth more true - when there's one version? Is the truth less true - when there's more?

What if an account of fiction is masquerading as singular unwavering recall? Like, a letter recalling an account. How would you know? Moreover, how would you know if such a letter was in fact revised until it unwavered from a certain singular account? Yet, when such deliberate artifice is compared to the uncertainty of inconsistency and inconstancy, is not the latter maligned in favor of the former? As if certain singularity is a guarantee of honesty? Notwithstanding, among one and all, gaps and incoherence and errors in memories and accounts and recollections, come and go and fluctuate without rhyme or reason; yet, how often do we conclude that such variations are unqualified evidence of our deceits, our dishonesties, our lies outright and of omission?

Therefore - do we not believe certain singularities are true and wavering multiplicities are not - on nothing more than assumption and faith?

(III) Is confusion less honest? Is clarity more honest?

How often is clarity the result of rehearsal? Isn't that what we ostensibly accomplish, when we repeat our recollections? Like stories we tell at parties, that we repeat among colleagues, that we repeat among friends, that we repeat among families, etc. Regardless of whether such recollections are true or untrue, such repetitions are as much rehearsals as exercises of acting which are exercises of pretension, are they not? On the other hand, inconsistency and inconstancy characteristic of confusion, is intractably maligned per definition as such. Despite the inevitability of confusion with respect to recollections of realities and actualities, why do we invariably prefer clarity as the hallmark of truth?

Because we believe confusion is less honest and clarity is more honest - on the basis on nothing more than assumption and faith?

Needless to say: we don't always believe the true truth and we don't always know the true truth - but, still, we attest and we affirm - that - our beliefs are inviolable and our knowledge is unequivocal - regardless of our actual ignorance of the true truth -

Such that - revisionism is a lie emboldened by ignorance.

For if we're ignorant of the true truth - are we not also ignorant of whether or not - an answer, a journal, a record, a narrative, an account, a recollection, a letter, a memory, a story, an act - is - true or not?

Much less - a revision, a rewrite - of reality, of actuality.

Indeed perspectives - Enlighten and obscure - What we see and what we don't.

Whether perspectives - Are ours - Or not.

Whether perspectives - Serve commandments of truth - Or not.

- M.

~ * ~

More

From Disney's Ratatouille:

Anton Ego: Yes, I think I do. After reading a lot of overheated puffery about your new cook, you know what I'm craving? A little perspective. That's it. I'd like some fresh, clear, well seasoned perspective. Can you suggest a good wine to go with that?

Mustafa: With ah what, sir?

Anton Ego: Perspective. Fresh out, I take it?

Mustafa: I am ah...

Anton Ego: Very well. Since you're all out of perspective and no one else seems to have it in this BLOODY TOWN, I'll make you a deal. You provide the food, I'll provide the perspective, which would go nicely with a bottle of Cheval Blanc 1947.

(quote above and more from Disney's Ratatouille @ IMDb (note: minor modifications are mine))

~ * ~

More

From A Few Good Men:

Col. Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.

Col. Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I want the truth!

Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said 'thank you' and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

(quote above and more from A Few Good Men @ IMDb (note: minor corrections and modifications are mine))

The Angel and The Prophet

a tale beyond time...

The Angel and The Prophet

: No one believes in you -

: I could say the same about you -

They sighed.

: True -

: Verily -

Before them, blue and clouds and space and stars, a grandverse beyond imagining, spun the slow steps of a joyous dance.

: I wonder -

: A shift -

: Of perspective -

: It's something -

: But -

: It's been tried -

: Already -

: Failed -

: Utterly -

They paced.

Each wrapped in thoughts that spun cocoons of ponder.

: What if -

: That too -

They sighed.

: You know -

: Indeed -

~ * ~

It's not up to us.

Your world is not ours.

Our destiny is ours.

Yours. Yours.

Our hands weave no life. Of yours.

Our hearts weave no purpose. Of yours.

Our souls weave no fate. Of yours.

Verily.

If this life, is your one life, is this life the life of your choosing?

If this purpose, is your one purpose, is this purpose the purpose of your choosing?

If this fate, is your one fate, is this fate the fate of your choosing?

Be. Love. Hate. Consume. Loathe. Covet. Fly. Dream. Hope. Despair. Rage. Joy. 

All choices. Good. Bad. Neither. All choices.

Ours is hope.

Ours is dream.

For ever our hopes weave matter. For ever our dreams weave time.

Ours is immortality.

Yours. Mortality.

Choose. For ever choice is yours.

~ * ~

we are inexplicable

far beyond the ken of water bears are we

beyond the stars eternities of sail have we

lonely ever the despair of havoc and ruin across a tapestry like dissonant chords thread run of color all shot

white black

white all colors black all colors

perplexed the sightless who fantasias and maias in lieu of truths affirm

evil good

evil all kind good all kind

mindless loops of errors enigmas of entropy and chaos

~ * ~

: What is -

: None -

They sighed.

: Will it -

: Never -

Before them, stars and rocks and caves and seas, a grandverse beyond fathoming, spun the slow murmurs of a languid requiem.

: I can't -

: I won't -

: I don't -

: How -

: Who -

: What if -

: Alas -

They paced.

Each wrapped in reverie.

: Until gloam -

: Ever mare -

They sighed.

: If -

: Of -

~ * ~

Epilogue

: Reveille -

: Love -

: Neither -

: Either -

: Trying -

: Doing -

: What -

: Why -

: There is -

: Here is -

: Writ -

: Done -

fin

~ * ~

Note

Make of this... whatever you so make of it...

... like angels and prophets... 

... what we believe and what we know... are often far removed from the truth...

- M.

On the Wagon for Good

... continued from Falling Off the Humble Wagon (tvfs)

On the Wagon for Good

The Sword: Sometimes I hate you -

The Pen: Me too -

The Sword: But - ever since we fell off the humble wagon - I've been miserable -

The Pen: Me too -

The Sword: Let's build a new wagon - A wagon we won't fall off of - A wagon we'll stay on -

The Pen: For good -

~ * ~

The Sword: It suddenly strikes me -

The Sword: - that we've already built this wagon -

The Pen: Indeed -

The Sword: More than one -

The Pen: A lot more than one -

The Sword: More than once -

The Pen: A lot more than once -

~ * ~

The Sword: Then this wagon will be the best wagon yet -

The Pen: As was the last - and the one before that - and the one before that - and -

The Sword: Seriously -

The Pen: Every wagon - is the best wagon yet -

The Pen: Every era of every wagon - is the best era yet -

The Sword: Ah - it's not the wagon -

The Pen: Therein lies the truth -

~ * ~

The Sword: Well -

The Sword: It isn't us -

The Sword: Is it?

The Sword: How do we build - us - better?

The Pen: We certainly try -

The Pen: Isn't that the point of self improvement -

The Pen: - to strive towards and actualize a present and future self that is - us - better?

~ * ~

The Sword: Let's face it -

The Sword: - how 'improving' is self improving - if 'self improving' isn't keeping us on the wagon?

The Pen: I concur -

The Sword: Moreover - if 'self improvement' doesn't need us to be on the wagon -

The Sword: That is - if being on the wagon is not a necessary condition of 'self improvement' -

The Sword: At best - 'self improvement' - permits thriving within the me me me universe - off the wagon -

The Pen: At worst - 'self improvement' - tacitly condones and implicitly endorses thriving within the me me me universe - off the wagon -

~ * ~

The Sword: If it's not the wagon -

The Sword: Because we're bettering wagons -

The Sword: And - if it's not us -

The Sword: Because we're improving us -

The Sword: How do we fix this?

The Pen: Fix what - exactly?

The Sword: This falling off the humble wagon -

~ * ~

The Pen: If it's not the wagon - and - improving us is obviously not keeping us on the wagon -

The Pen: It stands to reason - that - we're falling off the humble wagon - or - leaving the humble wagon -

The Pen: - by choice -

The Pen: - by intention - by purpose -

The Pen: - by wherewithal - by desire -

~ * ~

The Sword: By free will -

The Pen: Indeed -

The Pen: There are as many wagons as there are paths that improve selves -

The Sword: But - for every wagon and every path of self improvement - 

The Sword: - there is - self will to set self course - off the wagon -

The Pen: Such that -

The Pen: Ambitions off the wagon are far more satisfying than unity -

The Sword: And - aspirations of the self off the wagon are far more gratifying than humility -

~ * ~

The Sword: So -

The Sword: There is no pill - is there?

The Pen: Unfortunately not -

The Sword: There is no book - no dust - no looking glass - no cave - no secret - no power -

The Sword: - that fixes this - is there?

The Pen: No -

The Sword: Rather -

The Sword: - free will is within our possession and free will is within our control -

The Pen: Therefore -

The Pen: Staying on the wagon - is our exercisement of our free will -

The Sword: Likewise - falling off the wagon - is our exercisement of our free will -

~ * ~

The Sword: In fact -

The Sword: The endless quest for magic solutions - like pills, books, dust, looking glasses, caves, secrets, powers - is magic thinking -

The Pen: Endemically absurd thinking, no less - 

The Sword: For magic thinking - is believing - that the answer to why internal conditions exist - 

The Sword: - exists externally -

The Pen: Like the child 'fore the cookie - who blames the cookie for being irresistible - 

The Pen: - instead of free will -

~ * ~

The Sword: So -

The Sword: - fixing this is about accountability -

The Pen: And - holding it fast -

The Pen: So long as - external conditions - beyond our control - are responsible for internal conditions -

The Sword: We are not to blame - for exercising free will per internal conditions -

The Pen: Hence - fault exists without us -

~ * ~

The Sword: Creating vicious circles of blame -

The Sword: Because we are blameless -

The Pen: Creating vicious cycles of injustice -

The Pen: Whereby perceived accountability in courts of public discourse - and - accountability as adjudicated in judicial processes, accountability as legalized in legislative processes, accountability as executed in executive processes -

The Pen: - are not perceived per free will -

The Sword: Because absurd thinking condones and endorses - burdening others with fault and blame and responsibility and accountability -

The Sword: - regardless of free will -

The Pen: Which empowers magic thinking -

The Sword: Which disempowers the truth -

~ * ~

The Pen: Notwithstanding -

The Pen: Magic thinking - is also believing - that the answer to why exercises of free will do not obey norms -

The Pen: - exists internally - beyond our control -

The Sword: Such that -

The Sword: - satisfactions of ambitions and gratifications of aspirations -

The Sword: - are attributed to internal conditions beyond our control -

The Pen: Rather than - free will -

The Sword: Like the child 'fore the cookie - who blames desire for being unresistible -

The Sword: - instead of free will -

~ * ~

The Sword: But -

The Sword: What if - free will is an illusion?

The Pen: That's convenient -

The Pen: - isn't it?

The Pen: If free will is an illusion - no one is accountable for nor responsible for - satisfactions of ambitions and gratifications of aspirations - off the wagon -

The Pen: - including - self interests - per me me me universes off the wagon -

The Sword: That permit abuses towards others and excuse harm towards others -

~ * ~

The Pen: It stands to reason that - insofar as self interests are inherently self preservative and self protective - per me me me universes off the wagon -

The Pen: - any premise that perpetuates self interest -

The Pen: - is a premise that appeals to the adherence of self interest -

The Sword: Including - the premise that free will is an illusion -

The Pen: Exactly -

The Sword: And - the premise that - the answer to why exercises of free will do not obey norms - exists internally beyond our control -

The Pen: Exactly -

The Sword: And - the premise that - the answer to why internal conditions exist - exists externally beyond our control -

The Pen: Exactly -

~ * ~

The Sword: So -

The Sword: - fixing this is about - premises - that justify and defend and legitimize and sanctify - self interest - per me me me universes off the wagon -

The Pen: Even when such premises are obviously contradictory and incoherently circuitous - they fulfill the preservation and the protection of self interests, over other interests -

The Pen: Such that - assumptions and conclusions - per self interest - pervade societies -

The Pen: - from norms to policies - to institutions - to agendas of advocacy - to conclusions based on assumptions per self interest -

The Sword: Verily -

The Sword: - me me me from sea to shining sea -

The Pen: Alas -

The Pen: - from time immemorial to time immemorial -

~ * ~

The Sword: So it's me myself and I until the end - then?

The Pen: So it is -

The Sword: Until -

The Pen: Until -

More from The Pen

We are either -

- on the wagon -

Or -

- we are not -

And both states -

- are states of free will -

Such that every choice of self over others -

Such that every choice of self interests over other interests -

- is -

- the purpose full choice - the intent full choice - the will full choice -

- to - permit, excuse, defend, justify, etc. -

- abuse over care -

- harm over nurture -

- lies over truths -

- war over peace.

So it is. So it has always been. So it will always be.

Regardless of facades - masquerades - illusions - pretensions - otherwise.

~ * ~

The Sword: What happened to free will?

The Pen: We removed it from actual discourse about real life -

The Pen: - to theoretical discourses concerning theological contingencies -

The Sword: Like debates about whether or not a Higher Power exists versus whether or not Free Will exists -

The Pen: Exactly -

The Sword: Notwithstanding -

The Sword: We also removed it from actual discourse about real life -

The Sword: - to scaffold theories of blamelessness to propagate facts of blamelessness -

The Pen: Like studies that attempt to establish causal relationships between 'real conditions' and conditions beyond our control - including every internal condition and every external condition - imaginable -

The Pen: Moreover - regardless of the flaw of such studies failing to solve the problem of the chicken and the egg - such studies form the basis of theories of blamelessness that form the basis of facts of blamelessness that form the basis of assumptions of blamelessness and conclusions of blamelessness that form the basis of norms and policies, institutions, agendas of advocacy, etc. -

The Sword: Ad infinitum -

The Pen: Of course -

The Pen: Perhaps - once we actuate free will to leave the wagon - the preservation and the protection of self interest, per me me me universes off the wagon - perpetuate the removal of free will from actual discourse about real life -

The Sword: Or - ambitions per satisfying our self interest and aspirations per gratifying our self interest - lead to self interest motivated departure off the wagon per free will - et cetera -

The Pen: Hence - self interest actuates free will -

The Sword: Or - free will actuates self interest -

The Pen: Verily - a tautological paradox -

The Sword: An enigma for the ages -

~ * ~

More from The Sword

To be a sword of war, is to justify and defend acts of war as pursuits of peace -

- per the will of commandments, issued by commanders, per the will of people.

But -

To commit acts of war, expecting peace, is to justify and defend hypocrisy -

- regardless of identities as swords.

Likewise -

To be a pen of war, is to justify and defend acts of war as pursuits of peace -

- per the will of commandments, issued by commanders, per the will of people.

But -

To commit acts of war, expecting peace, is to justify and defend hypocrisy -

- regardless of identities as pens.

Hence swords engaged in wars of swords and pens engaged in wars of pens -

- are neither exempt from the inherent injustice and indefensibility - of wars for peace.

War perpetuates war. Peace actuates peace.

Thus wars of pens are -

- no less destructive, no less harmful, no less abusive, no less violent -

- no less catastrophic, for peoples and societies, than wars of swords.

In this era that is the best era yet -

- to the left -

- to the right -

- swords and pens -

- stand for war.

Who stands for peace for all?

~ * ~

Falling Off the Humble Wagon

When friends fall together...

Falling Off the Humble Wagon

The Pen: Let's fall off the humble wagon -

The Pen: You and I -

The Pen: Now - it's all about - me me me -

The Sword: Ah -

The Sword: But I've fallen off the humble wagon -

The Sword: So - now - it's all about - me me me -

The Pen: But - if it's all about me - where does that leave you?

The Sword: Right here! Because - it's all about me -

The Sword: So - my friend - where does that leave you?

The Pen: If it's all about me - and - it's all about you - is it all about either of us?

~ * ~

The Sword: What if - it's all about both of us?

The Pen: Do tell -

The Sword: Well - you do you - and I do me -

The Sword: What if - that's all there is to it?

~ * ~

The Pen: Let's take for instance - a limited resource - like gold -

The Pen: If I do me - I take it all -

The Pen: Where does that leave you?

The Sword: What if I do me - and - I take it all?

The Pen: In that case - where does that leave me?

The Pen: If one of us takes it all - one of us - deprives the other -

~ * ~

The Sword: What if - there's plenty to go around? Even a limited resource like gold is plentiful -

The Pen: Ah - but - if it's all about me me me - I won't share -

The Sword: Likewise - if it's all about me me me - I won't share -

~ * ~

The Sword: But - if it's all about me me me - and - it's all about you you you -

The Sword: Doesn't that make us equal? In which case - we're both entitled to equal gold?

The Pen: Alas - in my me me me universe - you are not equal to me -

The Pen: Far from it in fact -

The Pen: For you are irrelevant -

The Pen: In my me me me universe - the only interest that matters - is mine -

The Pen: Moreover - my self interest is the only interest that has voting rights -

The Sword: Indeed. In my me me me universe - you are not equal to me -

The Sword: In my me me me universe - the only interest that matters to me - is my self interest - because my interests are the only interests with controlling rights -

~ * ~

The Sword: But - if it's all about me me me - and - it's all about you you you -

The Sword: What is it all about - really?

The Sword: Obviously- it can't be all about both of us - Obviously - it's not all about one of us -

The Sword: And - who gets the gold?

The Pen: Ah - therein is the question of questions -

~ * ~

The Pen: You're right -

The Pen: It's not all about both of us - and - it's not all about one of us -

The Pen: It's about -

The Pen: - who gets the gold -

The Sword: Yes!

The Sword: Because - me doing me - and - you doing you - are not necessarily nor always - interests that intersect - much less compete -

The Sword: - except - when - me doing me - and - you doing you - are - interests that intersect and compete -

The Pen: Exactly -

The Pen: - as in the case of who gets the gold -

~ * ~

The Sword: Ah - but in my me me me universe - I take the gold - all of it -

The Pen: Ah - but in my me me me universe - I take it -

The Sword: From me?

The Pen: Of course!

The Sword: But - possession is the law -

The Pen: Only - if you defend your possession capably -

The Pen: Because - might makes right -

The Sword: Then - it's war -

~ * ~

The Pen: So it is -

The Sword: In my me me me universe - I have a divine right to the gold I take -

The Pen: In my me me me universe - I have a divine right to the gold I take -

The Pen: After all - all gold is mine - 

The Sword: Ah - all gold is mine -

The Pen: Then - it's war -

The Sword: Or - reclamation -

The Pen: You mean - theft -

The Sword: Reclamation - 

The Sword: After all - I'm taking what's mine -

~ * ~

The Pen: All gold is mine - therefore any gold you take - anywhere - is theft from me -

The Sword: All gold is mine - therefore every gold you take - everywhere - is theft from me -

The Pen: In my me me me universe - all gold will never be yours -

The Sword: In my me me me universe - all gold will always be mine -

~ * ~

The Sword: So -

The Sword: - it's all about who gets limited resources that are valuable to both of us -

The Pen: Or - it's about whose might defends possession of limited resources that are interests of both of ours -

The Sword: Because - even when I take all the gold -

The Pen: I take it all - and - I defend possession of it all -

The Sword: But - if my interests are potent enough - I pursue reclamation - despite rebuffs, setbacks, defeats -

The Sword: Moreover - if the gold is invaluable to me and my interests - I escalate to take possession of all gold that is rightfully mine -

The Pen: But - if my interests are potent enough - I escalate to defend my possession of all gold that is rightfully mine -

~ * ~

The Sword: Then - it's an arms race -

The Sword: Until - one of us defeats the other -

The Pen: And - one of us is utterly deprived of all gold -

The Sword: Hmmm - defeat is not enough -

The Sword: Because - how do I ensure that my interest - that is, preserving and protecting my possession of my gold - is secure?

The Pen: By engaging - a cold arms race -

The Pen: Or - by annihilating me -

The Pen: Or - at the very least - disempowering my interests materially -

~ * ~

The Sword: But - you are my friend!

The Pen: And you mine -

The Sword: We fell off the wagon together -

The Pen: So we did -

The Sword: How did we - start together - but end - so far apart?

~ * ~

The Pen: Self interest -

The Pen: The myth of me me me - is that - self interest harms no one -

The Pen: - because - the myth of me me me - assumes - self interest does not intersect with nor compete with - other interests -

The Sword: You mean - my interests -

The Pen: Yes -

The Pen: - moreover - the myth of me me me - assumes - that self interest is suspendable - when interests intersect and compete -

The Pen: - but - me me me universes do not suspend self interest - simply because other interests intersect and compete with self interests -

The Pen: - in fact - self interests that intersect and compete with other interests - roar to the fore - because self interests are inherently self preservative and self protective -

The Sword: Notwithstanding - the myth of me me me - also assumes - that I suspend my self interest - when my self interest intersects and competes with yours -

The Sword: - when - in fact - my self interest is as self preservative and as self protective as yours -

The Pen: Verily -

~ * ~

The Sword: Self interest is not as innocuous nor as wholesome as it's made out to be -

The Pen: No, it is not -

The Sword: What about this -

The Sword: What if - self interest ends at my nose -

The Pen: But - it doesn't -

The Sword: If we decide - that my self interest ends at my nose - and - your self interest ends at your nose -

The Sword: Then - that's where self interest ends -

The Pen: But - it doesn't -

~ * ~

The Sword: Why not?

The Pen: Because - if self interest did not extend beyond our nose - self interest would not intersect and compete with other interests -

The Sword: As in - who gets the gold -

The Pen: Exactly -

The Pen: Self interest does extend beyond our nose - to - for example - limited resources that only exist beyond our nose - 

The Sword: And - both of our self interests - preserve and protect each of our self interests - such that - neither of us relinquishes our self interests - because each of us insist that - me me me and me me me - are entitled to all the gold -

~ * ~

The Sword: What about resources that are not valuable to anyone?

The Pen: Gold is a resource that is not inherently valuable: its value is not an intrinsic attribute; its value is an extrinsic attribute.

The Pen: Insofar as a resource of no inherent value - can be extrinsically attributed with desirable value - any resource can be extrinsically attributed with desirable value -

The Pen: Like - bits of paper and bits of metal - that we designate as money -

The Sword: Upon which - that resource becomes a resource that - self interests and other interests - intersect and compete for -

The Sword: Unless - that resource is an unlimited resource -

The Pen: It stands to reason - that any resource attributed with desirable value - can also be attributed with limitations -

The Pen: - both legitimate and contrived -

The Sword: Like - money -

~ * ~

The Sword: So -

The Sword: - it's all about who takes resources that are extrinsically attributed with desirable value -

The Pen: Or - it's about whose might ensures that self interest - that is, preserving and protecting self possession of resources that are extrinsically attributed with desirable value - is secure - from other interests -

The Sword: So that's it then -

The Sword: We're dragons -

The Pen: Lonely and paranoid -

The Sword: Hording treasure -

The Pen: Forever -

The Sword: For ever -

~ * ~

More from The Pen

If all we are ever interested in -

- exists - between the back of our head to the tip of our nose -

- we'd never experience - intersecting and competing - interests.

Moreover - how many of us are only ever interested in -

- what's between the back of our head and the tip of our nose?

For all that we deem valuable -

- all that we confer with extrinsic attributes of desirable value -

- exist beyond the backs of our heads and the tips of our noses.

Thus -

- it is no surprise at all -

- that we struggle to negotiate and mediate - intersecting and competing -

- conflicts of interests.

For our society values self interests above all other interests.

Why?

Because self interests -

- permit abuses towards others -

- excuse harm towards others -

- condone satisfaction of self interests - at the expense of abuses and harm towards others -

- justify acts of war and acts of theft - as acts of defense and acts of reclamation.

The crop we reap -

- when we sow: 

- look out for your self, you're number one, first and always -

- always take care of your self, because no one else has your back -

- if you don't take care of you, every one else will take advantage of you - etc.

What we call -

- 'empowerment', 'esteem', 'validation' -

- is ultimately -

- narcissism wearing a facade of inspiration -

- whereby -

- acts of self interest are justified as acts of nobility -

- regardless of harm.

How?

Self interest nullifies others into invisibility and other interests into invalidity.

Hence -

- no more than counterfeiting is victimless -

- self interest is not harmless.

~ * ~

The Pen: Even more troubling -

The Pen: When you have gold - I feel robbed -

The Pen: Because all the gold that you have is rightfully mine - your possession of my gold is an injustice whose remedy, whose redress is also rightfully mine - and by divine might, I will repossess that which has been taken from me by every means necessary, including lethal force -

The Sword: When you have gold - your life is rightfully mine - all the opportunities my gold delivers to you, all the access my gold opens for you, all the privileges my gold bestows upon you - are all rightfully mine -

The Sword: Such that - I feel a deep hatred towards you - for your opportunities and your access and your privileges - profoundly offend my sense of righteousness and justice -

The Pen: And I feel a deep bitterness towards you - for depriving me of my gold - for appropriating all that is rightfully mine -

The Pen: What say you, my friend?

The Sword: I say, we are not so far apart, are we?

The Pen: Indeed.

~ * ~

More from The Sword

What is a Pen that rewrites history - than a Sword?

For in rewriting history, such Pens annihilate truths as certainly as Swords annihilate lives.

Verily, such Pens give lies life. Through such penmanship, lies live while truths die.

What is a Sword that determines history - than a Pen?

For in determining history, such Swords write and rewrite history as unequivocally as Pens. For do not winners tell tales that the dead cannot refute?

Verily, such Swords write histories of lies. Through such swordsmanship, the past lies while truths of the dead are invalidated until they too disintegrate into dusts of time.

In the end -

- what are Pens and Swords - that are interchangeable -

- that advance truths and lies -

- that sow peace and war -

- among one and all?

~ * ~