vacuum salesman

they were hired and fired

on a creative discipline of compulsion

They will come to your door and ask to speak with your children

And your children will recognize them as the friendly guy on TV

They wrote a book “The Big Book of Knowledge (for kids)”

Everything you want to know about

“What if the moon suddenly disappeared?”

There would be space completely unlike the space in a bowl.

The space between subnuclear particles follows the confines of certain ceramics

That can be bent by gravity

Pressure the mind to condense, it will begin emitting gravitational waves

How does gravity grip us across the chasms of space, not just any space, but the space we have defined, the space most inductive to our understanding?

If the mind has control over the pressure acting on itself, could one enact as an act of will? The ability to grip objects across space.

And how would we use this power harmlessly?

By making the actors so poor, that for survival they operate on others minds

to buy vacuums.

the brick wall reality makes a house of cards

The hermit creates a fire of austerity.

The warrior depends on his body and the touch of earth beneath his feet.

The riders of the Great Vehicle

Generate a flow of their energies to be harnessed at a loss or gain.

The lovers shun the Prince of Air

The fool is our goddess with child, who’s giving, yielding breasts are the beginning of the wheel of fate.

A human is an even number

And this ghoulish lump that writes 

to self-curb

obscene flaps of skin,

makes light pen strokes that barely touch the page,

gestures of wings disappearing into the white sky,

A sneeze and a tissue to mop this face, afterwards,

the dream continues

science and poetry


I think the word “science” has become too general and ambitious a word. If people look at an octopus, they say they are “doing science”… and maybe they are right, but I prefer that the union of such disparate thinking that is now under the term science would instead occupy a nebulous and all-connecting field of rhetoric. I believe rhetoric is what connects mathematics to poetry and everything between.

Poetry is an exploration of ideas-as-sensation and the texture of language. In that sense it is a science, not a science of the mind, but a science of the contact of the mind with mind-objects like ideas. In this sense poetry is quite a vast realm of doors to new knowledge. It replaces much of what we consider science, and It is limited only by a consideration of what is direct sensation with the other 5 sense-doors. If the mind intervenes with our other sensations, such as in an expanded uncertainty principle, we return to the realm of poetry.

I cannot emphasize well the shift I am describing, where body-contact (such as sex) is sensed with the body, not the brain or the mind. The body and all its organs don’t have their center in the brain. The sources of knowledge are decentralized when mind-objects are distinct from body-objects and tongue-objects. I am describing a return to the whole human organism, where sex-as-knowledge, eye-contact-as-knowledge, etc is not centered in an ethereal observer that has never been found even in the brain. Transcendence can come later, after we have returned and recognized the objects of mind (as distinct from the mind) distinct from other direct sources of knowledge.

With this return, thoughts, which are just another kind sensuality, can be brought down from its heights, and real transcendence of all 6 sense-doors can be pursued.

“Only disobedience can threaten authoritarians”


“Only disobedience can threaten authoritarians”</span></div>


Personally I think culture defends people against authority too. Trump owes some of his success to appearing to defend American culture. Hence MAGA and white male supremacy, but that doesn’t make culture a bad thing to be used against authority. Just because Trump misuses white culture to divide Americans doesn’t mean white culture, and culture in general is a bad thing. What I see in Thailand is a strong sense of culture that makes people agree on issues and behave in ways that unite and protect, regardless of what the “authorities” say. In a sense that amounts to disobedience, but Thai people barely feel that they are being disobedient when they disobey a political leader or policeman, they are just being obedient to their culture. What to do in America with so many cultures and religions? In a sense the divisions in America are very real, not merely caricatures created by a fascist leader.

Feyerabend is my favorite philosopher of science. He says that he wrote his book arguing that science uses no method because he was faced with teaching philosophy of science to people of distant cultures such as Native Americans. He recognized that western science is a product of Western culture. Maybe “science as culture,” or better “science as practice,” is the way to unite the USA. The way to do that is for people who support science to stop pretending its universal, stop making it “above” any discourse with other belief systems. Science has to make peace with religion and culture through dialogue. This means that the ultimate concepts of Difference and Work found in science need to be softened (not to mention the Continuum, which, as Heidegger noticed, replaced all models for struggle, political between the right and left, or otherwise). Being different, or an individual, or working really hard to “make a difference” are not as great as they are touted to be. Dialogue about difference, love based on difference (like between male and female), and faith in difference are easy to allow into this “science as culture.” But also things like friendship and culture, things that really unite people have to be allowed into science as well. “Science as practice” may be the dominant way science unites the USA, and that means using social media, “phones” if thats what they are anymore, and voting machines (not to mention the legal apparatus that elections follow, which owes its authority to its machine-like appearance). Unfortunately mathematical algorithms that are supposed to make the flow of social capital “fair” is too easily manipulated.

In my dissertation, instead of saying “farewell to reason” as Feyerabend did, I try to soften the main ways that science tries to make itself above social, political, cultural, religious discourse. The main ways science tries to do this is through a claim to being logical or reasonable. The other authority claim science makes: that of being empirically based, is not divisive, except that for some reason the empirical basis pretends to exclude accounts of people (except other scientists) and appear to be based on… what? Chomsky reports that science has no clear agreement on what the “Physical” is anymore, so “Nature”? “Difference”? “Work”?. However, classical logic has as a foundational axiom the LEM: that differences between A and not-A, for any A, are absolute and universal. Calling probability a theory and not a logic allows mathematical logic to take its seat as the One True Logic, with its universal and absolute law of Difference, or so it is made to appear in mathematics curriculum that I have seen as a mathematics teacher. My dissertation is meant to argue that the LEM is not acceptable, with the important result that without the LEM, science is able to take on the important role of uniting the USA in “science as culture”.

Science as culture involves adopting other normative values. It would no longer make the pretense of being a neutral descriptor of… again what? not the Physical… Ethical considerations, such as how much work is too much, how much interrogation of the earth is probing too deep, or is too dangerous to the environment, or to our humanity. The atomic bomb, atomic waste, and excessive carbon pollution, and plastic and other pollution, pandemics, and other side effects of a scientific community should render their causes  unscientific.

I am not sure where this outpouring leads. I feel sympathetic to the plight of Americans in the US. Make no mistake: our actions, our beliefs, our inclusions and exclusions, reverberate across the world. But our institutions are more powerful than our individuality. They must be disobeyed. We should be ruled by people, not law, be it scientific law or otherwise.

How Vagueness Reveals and Precision Conceals


People often think that vagueness is bad, a kind of darkness that can never be fully dispelled, while distinction is hailed as the clarifying answer to vagueness. Here is how the reverse is also true: Vagueness is the light and distinction a darkness.

The distinction I pick is not random, but an important part of all other kinds of logical distinction—the distinction between the “if, then”: “→” and the “conclusion” symbol: ⊢. ⊢ is ambiguous, however, and can mean other things such as assertion that a proposition is true and not just being named, or to assert in a metalanguage that the following is a theorem in the object language. Used in our sense here, the good property of the “→” is “true” and the good property of the “⊢” is “sound”. The distinction goes back to Aristotle. The main point is that if we do away with this distinction, call these two symbols the same, an interesting insight can be made—that a sound argument:


Can be represented without the ⊢ as follows: [A AND (A→B)] is logically equivalent to [A AND B], so that the conclusion [A AND B]→B is merely a deduction of A from [A AND B]. Allowing a vagueness between → and ⊢ reveals what logical deduction is—it is a cut from a larger whole, e.g. logical deduction is the act of drawing a distinction from the larger [A AND B]. With the introduction of the distinction between → and ⊢ this is concealed:


cannot be collapsed into [A AND B]→B. As promised, vagueness reveals and distinction conceals, but not just any concealment, here we have a concealment which allows distinction to reveal, since this distinction is at the root of any further logical distinction.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Cry Saint

Cry Saint and the world will shrug
Like a nursery rhyme that children don't listen to
Because they already know it is true. Truth is boring and tiresome,
We want the unthinkable, a shock you never saw coming
Cracking like a blue moon
To the Buddha-ghost-mind an unthinkable there is
Of mushrooms, there is one of which the holy books speak
A Saint who can consume them without death, only indigestion, but,
(I am serious... or they are, and I try to be... for them...
text me for the book title and page number),
This part about mushrooms is solidly in the Buddhist Theravada canon, but...
As if this weren't laborious enough I want to ask about seriousness, in all seriousness,

How can I not laugh about this murderer Pythagoras 
Who also taught everyone in his cult not to eat beans?
Pythagoras who drowned his student to cover up a math proof
that "not everything is number"?

Archimedes, the archmage who used the law of parabolas to burn down ships at a great distance, enemies of his king. The higher law... was it the parabolas or the burning ships?
I am on a burning ship and it is not funny. Parabolas are a silly I-told-you-so entertainment in comparison.

We want truth, we want to believe the ball gets picked up again and again, rising higher and higher,
But the ball drops over and over. 
Now we drop it again, staring into a parabolic mirror.
Progress is a dream and it is only sad because it is a dream.
Otherwise it just wouldn't be at all.

Don't the lessons of Mother Goose teach anything
About surfing solar waves
Or what of clouds is unthinkable?

The Wealth of Heaven Shines in Rain

How to own a waterfall?
Abundance, do not make a coin from it.
The water wheel is less generous than the water
The market of fate hurries away when the rain falls
May fate be the rain, may it not be the market
Rain spilling like a young mother's milk
We, her babies, sap her bones... but who?
We don't know who we are, we only see something
and our hearts-blood moves:

A babe at the breast, warm loving gratitude

Where is the universe except here?
Where is knowing and not knowing without this?
Careful with the question "who?"
This question belongs to the Owner of the Night
in trees quivering in the night wind, you may find Night's messenger.

The owl will only mirror your question.

It is this emptying that creates fullness
Emptying and filling one vessel at the same time, a mystery of our hearts

As we yearn for a generous world,
For our hearts of stone to grow moss, an endless sprouting, invincible,
We as a multitude must spill wine for the gods.


in honor of studio ghibli

Spiller wears the coat of a rat
He uses it to fly
The Lorelai likes his strength

he tried to woo her
With a feast of grasshopper leg
His manners are non-existent,

he is a great survivor, and his friends all need survival, which he shares.

Spiller is a small man, tiny, easily missed

The great men the Lorelai loved were too big, so she accepted the raspberry
An off-hand gift of Spiller

Under a hot lustful sun,
To the sound of a flute with a golden chip in its throat

They floated in liquid passionate lovemaking
Over a river of Tea.

On Love and Wonder

The warm love you feel when you give or work can’t be sustained, but meditation can eventually be something that can feed the heart. It doesn’t feel the same as the warm love, but with practice it can keep you happy, or at least healing, all the time. Sustained, refreshed, aware, ready for the next thought, feeling, pain, ecstasy, or observation without hurrying towards these things. Its the moments before all these that you want to make longer and longer, until the thought, feeling, external observation is not something to seek. It will come on its own, it will be fun when it comes, but for now: enjoy rest as long as it lasts. It may be called “The Land of Enough.”

I have climbed the mountain

I circled the wings of the sky
I trembled before enlightenment

I traveled far, walking God's walking
   Yet I have only one foot,
       a fool, only seeing monsters
            larger than dreams, sleeping,

   I left before they woke

Where is my armor, where is my sword
Where is my strength I have only
The cold wind in grey robes, long and wispy hair and beard
My sword was always my cane, and my shield was only a promise of my last breath.

On Facts

Facts are true descriptions. Examples are: in 1492 Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue, or serotonin is a chemical in the brain that controls happiness. We can think about and question facts. So one investigation could be: when exactly did Christopher Columbus sail the ocean to discover America? We can focus our investigation to what part of the year, what month, but when we get down to day, hour, second, and nanosecond, we find that we don’t know exactly what we mean by this fact.

The next question is What do I mean by “What do we mean?”? The fact is still true without asking this question. Or is it? 1492 was a whole year. Columbus didn’t sail the ocean in part of that year, so the fact is partially not true. We get into the problem of meaning. The two main theories of meaning are the same as the two main theories of truth: either we mean something precise, such as the nanosecond when the boat embarked (which falls into the problem of vagueness), or we mean something interconnected, such as the web of causes and effects, thoughts, feelings, motivations of the event of Columbus sailing. All these things over time, over cultures.

Now look at our fact again. After only a little thought, the fact has become a source of a lot of thoughtfulness and questions. One effect of a fact, as Henry Adams observed in his “Virgin and the Dynamo” is that they create ignorance. People believe them to be true and their certainty makes them stop thinking and investigating. They hang on to the fact rather than allowing it nuance. Even though thoughtfulness can lead to the poison of doubt, and the danger of this poison is very real, being a thoughtful culture is worth the risk

Here is why I care about this: We have two sides of America with two very different party lines that are hammered into our brains. One side becomes so sure about one fact, while another group becomes so sure about another fact. Thoughtfulness about facts allows people to listen to each other better, because the exactitude of truth in what is said isn’t the point. The weighing of a thought in your hand is not precise, but it is the way to think for yourself. Instead of published precision knowledge that communicates to a few specialists with the conceit of an eternal, inhuman contribution. The imprecision of weighing a fact is the basis of direct human communication.

The Po

The River Po

English is a spidery language
Most languages are just a web, a network of associations:
“What is the taste of the prescription of writing, what is this Net?” Thoth said.
The ancient Egyptian web
Almost lost, but for a stone.

English tries to be its own master;
The web loses its beauty, because the creator of beautiful webs
Is an ugly, mortal monster, servile to mastery

of its creation.
“English is in a bad way” said Orwell, who complained of automatic, unthinking chains
Of words written from memories of memories, copies of copies,
a blacksmith’s hammering, hardening the chains,

Fashioning a wiring of the human mind
That allows the electric Spider to master us unhindered.
And who is She, who can spy her without becoming Other, Her prey?

“You must talk in chains, about your chains.” said nightingale

I am the fly
Slay me, if you can, for the glory of Her Empire

A dragonfly
caught in a web glittering in the rain, Suspended over a river
At a time when I had nothing, I set him free with a hurled stone
The dragonfly, chains as ancient as the day is young, fell toward the flood,
Caught the air with its wings and flew