The Winner


Defeating a great warrior, better than you, the sweet victory running over your mind like a riveting train wreck, how you jumped free. Your decisions of movement and weight, the directions, feints, the deceit that your soul cried out to go on living, and the warrior believed, how you didn’t have to look to know you had won. The exquisite death cry signaling your own survival. To live another day, one must forget that victory, else, that great warrior really defeated you. Then the real battle starts: the battle against your own mind, your own victory.

Transient elves occurring in rings


Transient elves occurring in rings,

During narrow bipolar events (NBEs),
Leave signatures and radio signals.

Three negative NBEs, producing a tropical storm,
Indicate the dominant-lightning-leader:
the first simultaneous discovery
Of elves seen as delayed optical 
Emissions, near-ultraviolet, confirming the appearance 
Of bipolar elves and their method of observing.
We see them from the ground 
in China, and from spacing

On the hypothesis of corona discharges.
Overshooting thunderbirds,
Triggering lightning and blue jets,
With the associated weak negative NBEs that rapidly inhabit ionospheres,
Elves excite sufficient current for new clouds and rain.

Endless Mistakes of Snow


“To write everything is to put a sword in the hands of a child”

red turns to green, Do not make a difference.

both the same and the different

are cut down all the same by war machines.

Endless mistakes of snow

words falling, failing

My imagination turned black

False stars, ghost stars, the sky envelops us in stone

the weather is our pagan religion, lost within caverns,

faith in the eye of the whirlwind

Zeno and Grunbaum


One of Zeno’s famous paradoxes is his challenge to the mathematicians view that any finite line segment can be divided by a point. If so, the resulting lines can be subdivided. Zeno’s question is then “If lines can be divided and subdivided, what would the size of the lines be after fully dividing the line?” The absurdity does not lie in the question, but in any answer a mathematician could give. If a mathematician says there are lines with sizes as an outcome, then the sum of the infinite number of lines would make the original line infinite (we said originally that it was finite), and so a contradiction. Otherwise if the result is points, or lines of zero length, the sum of the lengths of points of course would be zero (but we said the line was of non-zero length), and so another contradiction. There are many other possible answers to the question. The reason the question is so famous is that all the answers so far have been unsatisfactory or absurd. I can only guess at why this question has been so mistreated over the 2500 years since it was asked (for example, authors often put any absurdity with Zeno himself, when the questions were intended to show absurdity in his opponents. Authors also accuse Zeno of all sorts of foolish intentions for his questions, such as that motion is impossible). Zeno’s intention, however, is not in question: he was a student of Parmenides and was simply making arguments to defend his teacher’s doctrine that there was only One thing in the world. Regardless, Zeno’s question has outlasted any answer.

Adolf Grunbaum is eminent in the position that Zeno’s paradoxes are refuted by modern mathematics. In his essay “Modern Science and Refutation of the Paradoxes of Zeno”, he began by making exactly the mistaken claim that “Zeno attempted to demonstrate the impossibility of motion” (p. 165 Zeno’s Paradoxes) Grunbaum goes on to introduce briefly the common notion among mathematicians, introduced by Cantor in the 19th century, that there are different kinds of infinities and so we are faced with choosing a particular kind of infinity for the result of the infinite subdivisions of a line. He argues that the kind of infinity of points on a line is “super-denumerable” and cannot be added the way Zeno proposed. Normal addition is reserved for the familiar denumerable infinity that proceeds like the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, etc). However, the divisions Zeno proposed begins as denumerable, (one division or point, then another, etc). And the number of divisions is the same as the number of points. Grunbaum, like Cantor before him, argues that the result of this process, while denumerable at each finite stage, results in something that is not denumerable but “super-denumerable”, refuting inductive logic. As we divide we are working with line-segments of some size, and in the limiting case what results are not segments of zero size (which could be summed), but something with no concept of size whatever. This is exactly the argument that induction is false- that even though we can make repeatable observations of an object on a controlled experiment, as soon as we stop looking the object transforms into something entirely different. Before, I defined numbers as a kind of difference, what we are summing (or subtracting) includes how it is summed, so points that are “super-denumerable” are not the same as other points because summation is different for “super-denumerable” points.

But there is something deeper going on here than this mathematical play of words. A line segment can be defined by its endpoints. Indeed, the endpoints are all that is needed to make a formula for a straight line. The “stuff” between the endpoints, using Aristotle’s terminology, would be the substance. Now we have come to the question “What is a line segment?” Aristotle would say that first and foremost it is its form (or formula), which is to say, its endpoints. Aristotle added to this of course, including in any “what” also its cause or “why” (Aristotle’s Metaphysics). Such expansive thinking has long gone out of use, but Grunbaum would have us believe that the substance of a line-segment is a thing so different from its form as to be completely incommensurable- that Aristotle’s conception of being (which was a marriage of form and substance) must be utterly divided, leaving us with much deeper problems than what we had before with Zeno’s question. Do we abandon form (endpoints) in favor of substance, since the “stuff” of the line-segment would ultimately be a collection of Grunbaum’s “super-denumerable points.” In that case, what would addition or any other mathematical concept be, since we must compare endpoints to measure, and use the result to add, without these formal concepts there is little left of mathematics at all.

Zeno’s subdivisions could be placed in an increasing order as in a sequence used in the axiom of completeness- the axiom that “distinguishes the real numbers” (Abbot, Understanding Analysis). The problem becomes that ordered in this way the limiting “super-denumerable point” is unlike the other points in the sequence, which are endpoints of line-segments. A “super-denumerable point”, as Grunbaum states, has the property that “no point is immediately adjacent to any other.” (p. 169 Zeno’s Paradoxes) In other words, there are only endpoints/there are no zero-length segments. Perhaps Grunbaum is claiming that Zeno’s infinite process of division is not plausible, since to fully subdivide we would need all the points between any two points on the original line to be there as finished divisions. But that would reject the axiom of completeness (and consequently the real number system), where infinite divisions of this kind happen, eventually creating a zero-length segment (a least upper bound to an infinite increasing sequence is an adjacent point, if it were not adjacent to the sequence of points, it would not be a least upper bound). If Zeno’s division is somehow plausible, but somehow without creating adjacent points, what follows is pure nonsense: the resulting points are not “zero-length segments” because zero-length segments require adjacent endpoints in a way that the segment is of zero length. Thus, the ideas of a “zero-length segment” and a “super-denumerable point”, according to Grunbaum’s line of reasoning, must be totally different things. The result of Zeno’s subdividing is then something neither with size, nor of zero size, or perhaps it is both, but it doesn’t matter anymore, we will just call it a “super-denumerable point”, or “linear Cantorean continuum of points” (Grunbaum p. 169 Zeno’s Paradoxes).

At this point an appropriate question is: “What purpose does the mystical belief in super-denumerable points have?” The mystical desire to control oneself has an obvious purpose of freedom and control, but the super-denumerable is not defensible on logical grounds. It would behoove proponents of the view to explain why we should get worked up about it. My speculation is that thinkers become frustrated with how little they end up knowing as a result of thinking, and so the motivation is for teachers of math to feel we know a lot, and be able to say what we know to students. Support for belief in super-denumerable points is that knowledge justifies itself, whether it makes sense or not. Another defense is that this type of math is part of academic culture. The reason math is so important to research is another embarrassment: that math makes sense while other cultures do not. Now, the culture of number is freed from sense and can expand and take on an inclusive attitude to other views.

Aristotle’s substance, at least one of his definitions of it, was a subject that could not be predicated. Another definition was form or essence, and form and substance are deeply connected. In searching for substance, predicates divide the subject. “The human is a man” (or “Woman”) is a division of human. Metaphor, in this view, is destructive to a search for substance. It expands words: “Humans are stars” makes a mess of things, only adding possible predicates. Unless you search for the intersection of “human” and “star”, in which case you are dividing both. Regardless, seeking knowledge of substance is a process of division- so too with a process of division of line segments. And what is the result of this infinite division, this search for substance in the excised world of pure form that is mathematics? It is merely the division itself – the point – which is what we started with when we were looking for substance. What is our point? Or is it changed into a super-denumerable point? Or some other kind of point or division of a line? What is this scalpel? Have I used it violently in searching for it?

all-american fish

Salmon struggle against each other to breed

by clamoring upstream in a crowd.

And now the streams are shallow

you can only see fish

with almost no water, breathing one drop is success.

In an epic battle to preserve the species,

The stream becomes corpulent, uninspiring,

One fish just gives up

He is run over, what a bum!

He receives rest under the mud

Most of them compete:

a bottomless Abyss of fighting,

All while praising god or science for the opportunity.

No meaning, only a dry, formulaic victory

of pushing a broom out

into the future faces of the unborn


The horizon is not a straight line, it is a circle that is too big. Everyone has a perspective, none of these perspectives are circumspect enough to see the big circle between heaven and earth, without losing the individuality of an artist. The artist is a fool for art, the accountant is a fool for counting and shuffling imaginary numbers, and procrastinating with their pretense of work on any worthwhile application of mind. The priest is a fool for Jesus. The spiritual seeker is a fool for salvation.

The theory that there is no theory is not a theory. Theories are supposed to be worked into a semblance of consistency, but this "non-theory" is only disproven if you need to hear a theory, or expect one. The reason for a theory well-worked into hiding its falsehood is to make the creator feel as though he has created something to clutch to his chest, like a book to hold up and shield his heart. The books do not belong to anyone. They are all derivative of great minds that wrote no books.

Axioms are a popular rhetoric, just because they are not true, does not mean there is nothing. The Buddha had no philosophy, no theory, no book. He spoke to a student, or many students, and said what they needed to hear, because only the ignorant need to hear anything, need to know anything, need to think about anything, or say anything. The Buddha taught out of compassion, he spoke because it was a way of conveying something better than words. We may write zeros around all the things we think have a soul. There they are, not nothing, but not like a Being that the west sold its soul to grasp. There are no proper names. The heights of all the books are no higher than the creepers on the forest floor.

I wish I knew how to help you. Guilt is not something I feel at all. I feel fear at the consequences of my words, I feel anxiety about facing judgement. I feel shame when I speak too loud or too often, or remember the moments in my life where I should have done better. (all my moments)

Criticism leads to nothing, yet it helps people who ingest modern information. It is a reaction I have for people who need to hear something.

Salvation is just another spoke on the wheel of fortune. I work from my heart, to say the things people need to hear. That work is certainly damning, but Hell is only another spoke on this wheel. Condemn me, I am already condemned. When the great spiral of time curves up again, you will find me again as an angel. You cannot get rid of me, only I can do that. I am trying, and the world will be better when I am gone.

Questions and Definitions

Dear Pierre, you ask if the aphorism should be better represented in question form.

In answer, I quote Archimedes:

“Give me an immovable fulcrum and a lever long enough, and I shall move the Earth.”

The “lever long enough” would be a very long definition or aphorism and the fulcrum would be the point at the end. The long sentence would include (along with every other definition about the Earth) the longest word in the dictionary, a 45-letter word about a lung disease preventing someone from breathing. (Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis)

Interestingly, the more still and stable the fulcrum, the more power we have to create movement.

This is exactly the elementary relationship between a statement, period or point, and a question or question mark. An elementary use of a period is for a statement about earthy things, as in objects touchable, visible, smell-able, taste-able, etc., but the statement has been expanded into non-elementary use for almost everything. There are very few questions recognized as unable to be transmuted into statements. All questions are transmutable to statements (and vice versa) in a mystical sense. ( difficult is a definition of the question, see my paper “Many Roads from the Axiom of Completeness”) The elementary question is to suggest possibility and inspire wonder, but less lofty are to suggest uses, ways, means, and to compel specific actions or beliefs in others.

An example of how statements can compel is a published exchange between the Dalai llama with a group of scientists trying to persuade the Dalai Llama, or at least the audience, to the side of science. The Dalai Llama asked how life originally sprung from the primal molten Earth, and a scientist answered with a long string of statements that went on and on, somewhere lost in that string of statements life sprung, but the mystery and wonder of it was disguised by a pretense of hard work that produces heavy, relentless, knowing statements.

Another example of transmuting an unanswerable question into a string of statements is the mathematical proof of the impossibility of squaring the circle. We have, essentially, a question of means and we write mathematical statements to circumscribe this question as completely as we can. Once we have closed all entrances to this mysterious question “How do I make a square of a circle?” we may be persuaded of its singular openness with “One cannot square the circle.” This is not at all the truth, it can be done with mathematical imperfection, imprecision, vague pragmatic attempts. With one of these attempts, the mathematician will argue that it is not done. Only mathematicians decide when work is really finished, and the “…” ensures that we never are finished.

In the same way that we can transmute perfect stillness to the most irresistible movement, we can transmute all questions into statements, and that is exactly what is attempted by Aristotle with his Law of the Excluded Middle. The Law assumes that in any question of “this or not this?”, the reality is not a question but an answer of either “this.” or “not this.” (the elementary this, about an earthy thing). The question is unreal, it is purposefully split in two, like a doctor producing a schizophrenic.

Here I am going over ground that I have run so often, it feels like a hamster wheel. This is the feeling teachers get from teaching the same specific subject every year, which was my profession before illness.

We ask how to make the most stable truths, the aphorisms, into forms of movement. Generally, the movement of the aphorism is from an example, or a smaller sentence, that indicates or is inscribed in a generality about many sentences. This movement from the inscription to a generality is traditionally called induction. Bachelard conflates the word induction for the general action for his subject in “Air and Dreams.” And induction is conflated in many other ways in philosophical literature. I add to these conflations the symbol “…” used for mathematical induction, which has been the replacement for persistent questions, (such as what is the smallest particle). Here, the question is replaced with an imagination of answers beyond the horizon, deferred to future investigation. An imaginary continuousness of answers, not answers directly experienced here and now.

The most general movement is the movement of time, such as with a still rock, or water that flows in a way that appears still (Aj. Sumedho). This general movement inscribes another kind of movement: the movement from one time-stream to another. This is allowed with discontinuities in mindfulness, in vagueness, expanding on the general, on grasping beyond the horizon by inquiring about possibility. How to make the leap between time-streams well-leaped? What axioms and global constants/concepts do we wish to leap to? This is the next kind of airplane we must construct. If this airplane ends up as something commercialized, like our form of utilizing electricity and commercial airplanes, we will still find this last and most free kind of movement contained in another cage owned by our masters of capital.

While we have reached the heights: the power in the vagaries of clouds to generate light in the form of a shocking idea, we must remember that this is only enjoyable as long as we have the heart for it. And love is the fundamental reality, cutting through all time streams. To leap well, and be Well-Gone, is to leap between time streams to this fundamental: the molten iron from which the worlds are forged both hot and cold: Ultimate Truth: this door between all worlds that leads to unbinding:

Peace and friendships,


litany of rain

Where is tomorrow now?
"Tomorrow's flowers are very weak today", says the rain

We do one little thing for tomorrow,
without remembering our ancestors
who stole from us the joy of washing clothes by hand.

think this a small matter?

Some people work all day at a conveyor belt making small motions with their hands.
These people are very useful, and when they are done, they have an energy called merit.
They have blissful sleep, and blissful waking.

No matter how small her movement on the conveyor belt,

how little left, this laundry
Is my laundry, Get out of my way and let me do it,

The proud poet, looking down on this small act of laundry,
Has an air of "knowing what it means."

Both towers of intellect will fall because we need laundry.

People will not find ease easy,
There is no "how" for ease.

Only a refrain
A mantra that yields merit

A refrain for truth
A refrain for harmlessness
A refrain for great sex
A refrain for

Where is tomorrow now?
"Tomorrow's water is very weak today", says the rain

Tomorrow is a space we open today:
A space we can close,

This tired subject cannot Will itself into perfect vacuousness:
when space is positively empty.

Oh spacious, generous mind: Refrain, only
only a refrain

A refrain for truth
A refrain for harmlessness
A refrain for great sex
A refrain for

Oh spacious, generous mind, where is tomorrow now?
"Tomorrow is very weak today"


The demon wolf is not evil
who claims royalty can make a deal
he will take my hand and save my friend
because the wolf is my friend

"The wolf is only a dream"
I know
looking in fall stream water
cold, clear, still there are dead and black leaves
Divine these leaves and find the secrets of the universe.
divining leaves, you need clear, still water

so cold

The commanding heart, passionate and insane
Oh to have her heart shine on me again

My clean-cut head, no leaves, I walk on bare feet in the snow

There is a living man who is the Sun
He shows how words are flat, and that all the words and all the things they tell my eyes to see, behind them oh,

oh to have that man's heart shine on me again

This dream of a demon wolf
so close to my heart
to have this dream you need clear, still water

so cold

Jon “Hijinks” Clark sample poetry

Fruit and challenge
captivated, spit on
cheeks washed in brine
a boat splashes away
yesterday a window
it passes as still life
for society, the dinner guest

a comment on how the waves rest

appearances and the texture
water falls as if combed
by it’s tempest mother, a homage to the iris
the sculpture of feeling
swollen and ripe before swift cuts
to the sun-kissed strawberry
the happy phantom

By Hijiinks

Damned Good

You’re blessed if you do
blessed if you don’t
foot after foot step as ancient wood
creaking boards talk and the water under
the river lapping water splashes a drop
in the wind to seal together
a wandering mind and the whispering present.

Sitting down level with a row of boats
bows like mouths smile and frown
looking into the soul of the ocean
way down river distance blurs behind
vessels returned in the morning fog.

They sit tied while we travel back
to sit over the water looking at the
floating characters: hand carved osprey faces,
Viking dragons, turtle claws and smooth
linseed eyeshadow protects the journeys to come.

They rise and fall
each with it’s own voice that flies and dives
in slow harbor waves. Dreaming innocence
soars as a bird and echoes sacred songs,
spying as they come and go leaving foodscraps.

When they’re all gone there is no place to go but outside
exiting time itself the voices turn to dancing colors
we are taken in the teeth of coyote, no regrets
for his lapping of our blood is a trick of the light,
the blood a waterfall. The smell of cedar and love in balance
with life’s community; where have the solid plastic edges gone?

No, They are gone. A hand extends to you from a smiling chief
humor and grace invite you to join this moment
to celebrate karmic flight on the wings of spotted tail
to stay where the thunderbird comes
and goes at the ends to time to return.
Whether from the Black Hills, deep in the Amazon
or at the edge to the northmost lake where the polar bear
and snowy lynx hunt. The meek mouse tells the great story
again. We return to the holy feathering of lifetimes
upon cultures upon separations, gathering round
to hear the quiet tale of how we return to fly as one.

by Hijinks

Life Half-Priced by Jon Ash “Hijinks” Clark

Wounds of the Soul, Lifted

Translation from English by François Desnoyers

blessures de l'âme, soulevée
Pour que tous le sachent, La chaleur,

la vacuité des mots

Ils parlent et je n'entends pas. Je connais le message,

encore et encore et cela seulement    brille

Tel des robes d'or et blanc,
Je ne peux les voir, je sais qu'il n'y a rien sous leur voile

Des mots me font oublier les mots

profondes imperfections, blessures béantes, risibles
« Souviens t’en »
elles sont l'unique savoir
Un savoir vide, aucun besoin de gratter pour l'enrichir

Je pose ma tête sur le sol
À l'instant même où le soleil, se levant, touche la terre


“When we hear a Dharma talk (casual monk teaching) or study a sutra our only job is to remain open. Usually when we hear or read something new, we just compare it to our own ideas. If it is the same, we accept it and say that it is correct. If it is not, we say it is incorrect. In either case, we learn nothing. If we read or listen with an open mind and an open heart, the rain of the Dharma will penetrate the oil of our concsiousness.

The gentle spring rain permeates the soil of my soul; A seed that has lain deeply in the earth for many years just smiles

While reading or listening, don’t work too hard. Be like the earth. When the rain comes, the earth only has to open herself up to the rain” (The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching, by Thich Nhat Hanh, 1999, p. 12)

Duality like judging speech as positive or negative, good or bad, skillful or unskillful, learned or unlearned, connected, respectable, true,… can prevent listening and growth. What is the goal of conceptual work? Usually we just move from idea to idea without end. We find one idea that we like or feels new and fresh, we stop there for a while and have some peace.

This problem of both the promiscuous or the celibate thinker is called the Liar Paradox, and these thinkers perpetuate themselves with work or support from others because they cannot find an escape from the Liar Paradox. See the first post of this blog for more on the escape conceptual work and find ease.

Questions in Logic: How to escape the Liar Paradox