The Fives: Guitar Tunings

1. E B E G# B E
2. D G D G B D
3. D A D G A D
4. C G C G C E
5. B B D# F# B D#

The Fives: Quarterbacks

Since I moved most of my short form blogging to tumblr., this site has slowed to a crawl.  Just to kind of keep things moving, I will post a list of five things every so often.  This recurring nightmare will be called "The Fives".

1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Drew Brees
4. Aaron Rodgers
5. Andrew Luck

Stanley Wright's Lousy Attention Span

. . . has created another blog. We may never see the end of "The Weed Fairy of Greater Metro Louisville", but there's this. If you are interested in what goes on here, Diary of a Bad Capitalist is worth a follow.

TONY WOOLLARD BAT SIGNAL!

Tony: when you see this message, please comment on the post with a number I can reach you at and a time I can call.  I won't publish the comment, so no one will see it.  If I need an alternate time, I will comment on the post for you, and we can make other arrangements.

Talk to you soon.

Eileen Myles (REVISED)

There might be one or two of you out there who give a shit about how I edit.  "Eileen Myles" was originally written in a notebook, then shaped from the notes into the poem that I posted.  After letting it rest for a day or two, I decided it wasn't too bad, but needed just a little help.  The form/style of the poem is pretty loose, so I didn't get as obsessive about editing as usual.  Here is the poem, and I imagine that it will remain in this form, with maybe very minor changes, since this pretty much gets to the core of the idea.  There's nothing here that would lead me to the obsessive fussing I used to do over some poems.

for DWP

Turns out they were wrong, all those years ago.
It's space I need, not a voice. Eileen Myles
hacking through underbrush, and how does one
wield a machete at once casually and with
resolution?

Wait. I, in fact, have been granted space, as has 
Eileen Myles. It is the space itself that is the problem, 
in both our cases. Seems I'm king of the whole 
goddamn world, thank you very much, 
while Eileen is . . . something else. At least, 
they all told her that, and she sez we're
all, Kennedys, we're all normal, I'm the most
beautiful poet in the universe, I'm the only
one in the room with bleeding gums tonight,
I'm the only homosexual in the room tonight,
I'm really stepping off the flag now. Eileen Myles
Betsy Rossed the whole fucking thing. The flag is
hers now. The space is hers now.

I am no more interested in literary tourism now
than when I had Bukowski foisted upon me. Even
more, I have no fucks to give for New York, and
one fuck less to give for Boston. I'm drinking cheap
scotch, and it's a piss poor replacement for decent
bourbon. This Ravel is on my last nerve. I'm
jumping around - Wagner, Prokofiev, Mussorgsky,
Shostakovich, even Tim Hecker - and nothing
can quiet the vibrations in my head. Nothing
can quiet the stabbing displacement behind my
eyes. Nothing can still the disgust that convulses
my hand. This private fiasco is looking for a center,
looking for a steadying hand, looking for a glass of
good bourbon.

In the meantime, Eileen Myles has given up
writing a great poem, given up birthing an art
bigger than everybody else's, an art that makes
everybody feel alone. I, on the other hand, am
a fucking idiot. I will try to destroy humanity,
I will try to write a great poem. Resting safe
in the knowledge, imparted to me by Eileen Myles,
that I never will. To be left with one final task,
to draw nobility onto failure. To take failure back,
to make it something else, to send it along 
another path.

* * * * *

There is defiance in the machete work. That is easy
to latch onto. THIS IS THE GROUND UPON WHICH
WE MEET. The ground is hers, the battles are won
and lost, it's the fight that counts.

Eileen Myles has her shit to deal with. I have mine.
She's a lesbian and her teeth are falling out. I have
cheap shitty scotch, and Ravel is pissing me off.
"It's all in the struggle" they say, and it is, but
what the fuck does that mean anyway?

Eileen Myles finds love. I find soda water for the scotch.
Eileen Myles sees a dentist, Debussy follows Ravel.
Love is immanent. Cheap scotch with soda still makes
a decent drink.

Eileen Myles never wrote a poem so big
that everyone felt alone. She's tried, but she failed.
I've tried, but I've failed. Time to celebrate.

Eileen Myles

          for DWP

Turns out they were wrong, all those years ago.

It's space I need, not a voice. Eileen Myles

hacking through underbrush, and how does one

wield a machete at once casually and with

resolution?

Wait. Back up just a minute. I, in fact, have been

granted space, as has Eileen Myles. It is the space

itself that is the problem, in both our cases. Seems

I'm king of the whole goddamn world, thank you

very much, while Eileen is . . . something else.

At least, they all told her that, and she sez we're

all, Kennedys, we're all normal, I'm the most

beautiful poet in the universe, I'm the only

one in the room with bleeding gums tonight,

I'm the only homosexual in the room tonight,

I'm really stepping off the flag now. Eileen Myles

Betsy Rossed the whole fucking thing. The flag is

hers now. The space is hers now. She fought

for it, she won it.

    *the space, btw, is not political . . .

     the action - the attainment of the space,

     what happens within the space, the

     continuing saga of the space (its

     definition, its day-to-day life) is

     the political . . .

I am no more interested in literary tourism now

than when I had Bukowski foisted upon me. Even

more, I have no fucks to give for New York, and

one fuck less to give for Boston. I'm drinking cheap

scotch, and it's a piss poor replacement for decent

bourbon. This Ravel is on my last nerve. I'm

jumping around - Wagner, Prokofiev, Mussorgsky,

Shostakovich, even Tim Hecker - and nothing

can quiet the vibrations in my head. Nothing

can quiet the stabbing displacement behind my

eyes. Nothing can still the disgust that convulses

my hand. This private fiasco is looking for a center,

looking for a steadying hand, looking for a glass of

good bourbon.

In the meantime, Eileen Myles has given up

writing a great poem, given up birthing an art

bigger than everybody else's, an art that makes

everybody feel alone. I, on the other hand, am

a fucking idiot. I will try to destroy humanity,

I will try to write a great poem. Resting safe

in the knowledge, imparted to me by Eileen Myles,

that I never will. To be left with one final task,

to draw nobility onto failure. To take failure back,

to make it something else, to send it along another

path.

* * * * *

I love Eileen Myles, even if not in the specific.

I love Eileen Myles, without qualification, without

reservation. Not that she needs it, but she's

got it.

There is defiance in the machete work. That is easy

to latch onto. THIS IS THE GROUND UPON WHICH

WE MEET. The ground is hers, the battles are won

and lost, it's the fight that counts.

    *and it is the struggle that is political

     (obviously), the public struggle for public

     space . . . well, that's the political matter,

     what? haven't you been paying attention . . .

Eileen Myles has her shit to deal with. I have mine.

She's a lesbian and her teeth are falling out. I have

cheap shitty scotch, and Ravel is pissing me off.

"It's all in the struggle" they say, and it is, but they

wouldn't fucking know. Sometimes I don't fucking

know.

Eileen Myles finds love. I find soda water for the scotch.

Eileen Myles sees a dentist, Debussy follows Ravel.

Love is immanent. Cheap scotch with soda still makes

a decent drink.

Eileen Myles never wrote a poem so big

that everyone felt alone. She's tried, but she failed.

I've tried, but I've failed. Time to celebrate
that failure.

Lake Leelanau 8/20/2013

The King of Fashion

Against judgement

he proposed electricity

lightning

cruelty

brutal insomnia

and combat.

Against the judges

he proposed judgement –

   That he judged himself          

   was his zenith.

The pale criminal

equal to the thing

once done

shrinks in horror

from the image of the thing . . .

always running,

one step ahead,

chasing ghosts

He is given a name, and that name is judgement

“It is you who say I am . . .”

(flash and madness

dreams ricochet through darkness)

I AM THE WIND THAT BLOWS ILL

I AM EVOLUTION ACCELERATED

I AM REVOLUTION

I AM THE KING OF FASHION

(the king pronounces:)

“You dreamers, you jailers,

you cartographers, you debtors . . .

I owe you less than nothing.

Your maps mean nothing to me.

Your truth

means nothing to me.

If there are truths, they are negotiated.

If there are truths, they are earned.

Can you face

the falsity of your dreams

in the darkness of your night?

Can you be done with unicorns & Jung

& fascist bastards

who slice your body

into meek organs of reprisal

and dancing gods of debt?

Can you face me,

the surface of your nightmares,

knowing that your resolve is meaningless

because, tomorrow,

I become other?

Because yesterday,

today,

tomorrow,

I will always be other?

Can you live with me

knowing that

as surely as I can destroy myself

You can never harm me?

Can you understand

that you will never hold me?

Schizophrenia

you are building your own cosmology

out of broken tinker toys

assassinated meanings and logics

shells assembled from broken words

meaning for you is private

and that is a problem

you are a self disappearing

            behind a kabuki mask of anguish

defiant in your personal finitude

waiting

there is the gravel shore of a grey lake

with no horizon

the water blends to the sky

and you’re out there in a rowboat

screaming

but there is no sound

no movement

and we’re waiting here for you

to come back in

Marathon Pacers 2013 Post-Mortem

The season started with the P needing George Hill heroics to eke out a win over the lowly Raptors.  The season ended with a sadly familiar disappearing act in Miami.  In between, a lot of stuff happened.  It was either a disappointment, a pretty good season, or a great season, depending on your perspective.  The general consensus is that it was pretty good, and I'm down with that.  Just don't expect David West to get all gushy over it.

If, at the start of the season, you told me the Pacers would go to the playoffs, dispatch the Hawks and Knicks with reasonable efficiency, then take the Heat to seven games in the conference final, I would have been very happy with that result.  A conference final, and playing the Heat close to even in the finals, would have been considered the next step the Pacers had to take in the rebuilding process . . . and they got it done.

On the other hand, they should have won the series against Miami.  When they were playing "Pacer ball", they controlled the series. Unfortunately, they pulled their infamous disappearing act, an act that was as likely to show up against the Milwaukee Bucks (split 2-2 in the season series) as it was Miami (split 5-5, including the playoffs).  They controlled vast stretches of most of the Miami playoff games, and they were able to dictate their own game most of the time: only in games 3 and 7 were the Heat totally in control.  They had a golden opportunity to go to the finals, and no matter how bright the future looks for this team, there are no guarantees that fate won't up and slap you back down (in the form of injuries, losses on the free agent market, etc.).  These opportunities are fleeting, and the Pacers blew a golden opportunity.  From that perspective, the season was a disappointment . . . and hopefully, that's how they see it.  One look at David West, and you know he's feeling it.  At the end of the day, the Pacers have evolved into a good team, though probably not as good as Miami made them look.  The Heat are still (at this point) a better team than the Pacers by a fairly wide margin, even if the Pacers will always play them close.  They are still not quite at the "contender" level.*

*          *          *          *          *

Don't get me wrong, the news is plenty good for this Pacers team.  They took the first definitive step to the finals by establishing a rock-solid identity: they are going to be a brutal, defense-first team** able to dictate the terms of any game they are in.  With the exception of David West and Danny Granger, they are ridiculously young and ridiculously athletic.  Unlike the last Pacer team to emerge as a contender (O'Neal, Artest World Peace, Jackson, Tinsley, Miller), they are emotionally stable and mature (with the possible exception of Lance Stephenson, who nonetheless works really hard at stability and dependability, and has plenty of emotional ballast from his team mates to count on). For the first time since Reggie Miller's retirement, it looks like they have a legitimate future*** superstar in Paul George.  They have an anchor in the middle in Roy Hibbert.  They have top-notch veteran leadership with David West.  They have a whole lot of very good pieces.  And, since they're in the East, they get a steady diet of cupcakes to help keep their record well into the black for playoff seeding.  In short, this team has pretty much everything they need to be in the mix for an NBA championship for the first time since the meltdown at Auburn Hills.

Their weaknesses?  Yes, they have a few.  The bench is pretty bad: they actually took a step up in the playoffs from "abominable" to "weak".  Besides that special kind of psychosis that Tyler Hansbrough brings into the game, there isn't much there.  D. J. Augustine provided some good minutes in the playoffs, including some really big-time shooting that helped the P steal game 1 in the New York series; but he isn't that far removed from the days when he was replaced as the back-up point by Ben Hansbrough.  Ben Hansbrough.  Love Ben's game, but he's got European/Turkish/Israeli/Chinese league written all over him. Let Ben travel, for the love of god!  But, back to D. J., you can't be comfortable with a guy who can't even keep Ben Hansbrough off the court.  And then we have Gerald Green, one of the top five dunkers in the league, a 2 guard who can bang his sternum on the rim . . . but who can't, apparently, play basketball.  Sam Young has a great defensive attitude, and he seems to be a keeper, but still tends to break down at very inopportune times: for all the talk about Vogel's benching of Hibbert at the end of game 1 in Miami, for all of the Vogel apologists who blame Paul George for over-playing James on defense, almost nobody pointed to Sam Young's slow defensive rotation as part of the problem (Young should have been there at least soon enough to foul LeBron and make him earn his points at the free throw line).  Ian Mahinmi looked lost most of the time, but he demonstrates enough athleticism to convince me that he will someday become a reasonable time-killer for Hibbert, at least on the defensive end.  Other than that . . .

So, going forward, how do you fix the bench?  Well, the team did well this year without Danny Granger, who up until this season was generally considered to be their best player.  That makes the answer obvious to most of the talking heads: move Granger, his repaired knee, and his big contract for some help off the bench.  Maybe you could find a good player, just starting to head into the downside of his career.  If you are lucky, you can find a guy who was an all-star, maybe a guy who led his team in scoring, and if you are really lucky, a guy who was a demon on the defensive end as well.  And while the sky is the limit, maybe that guy was a leader in the locker room and an asset in the community.  Maybe what you need is a guy like . . . wait for it . . . DANNY GRANGER!!!  Yes, trading Granger for help off the bench is a little like trading David West to get more size under the basket.  I think Granger has a small enough ego to accept the "first guy off the bench" role, especially if he takes the same "instant offense" role that James Harden had with OKC.  The unfortunate ball-stopping tendencies that Danny was showing on the offensive end in 2011-2012 aren't a problem if he's coming off the bench, because who's he going to bother passing the ball to?  Sam Young?  Ian Mahinmi?  Please.  He can hog the ball as much as he wants, because he's the only one who can score.  And bonus points for allowing Tyler Hansbrough to concentrate solely on offensive rebounding and drawing fouls, since that's really the only offense that Psycho T can generate consistently.

Seriously, though, there are some really good reasons to keep Granger: one, he completes a second five (Augustine, Young, Granger, Hansbrough, and Mahinmi) that would actually be pretty respectable defensively (remember, team identity!), even if Augustine is a liability, and Hansbrough is often overmatched in the post.  And speaking of defense, how cool would it be to have a George/Granger/Stephenson/Young defensive rotation to guard those high-scoring wings?  It would be brutal, I tell you: four good-to-great wing defenders, 24 fouls to give. But, the main reason to keep Granger is actually very simple: there is no way, given his contract and the uncertainty following his knee surgery, that you will get value back for him.  While it may be useful to get his contract off the books, the team will be better with him on the court.  He was once an all-star player, and had the look of a good second option on a top-level team.  He was always a great team mate and a great person.  He could be an indispensable piece of a championship team . . . and that's what we're talking about here, right?

The other big problem for the Pacers is the aforementioned tendency to disappear.  It happened way too often during the season, and it happened against bad teams as much as good teams.  The reasons?  1.) TURNOVERS.  2.)  The inability to properly trigger the offense.  A small part of that has to do with the callow youth that characterizes this Pacers team.  Another small part of it has to do with the fact that, with the possible exception of Augustine, nobody on the Pacers has a very good handle.  But primarily, as Reggie Miller pointed out while killing television time during the game 7 blowout, the Pacers are working without a true starting point guard.  George Hill guards the point as well as just about anybody, but he's only average as a point at the offensive end.  His handle is only so-so, and he doesn't do a particularly good job at triggering the offense.  He does much better offensively as a 2, where he can take the ball after the offense is already in motion, where his lack of a handle or explosive quickness doesn't really hurt him.  George Hill has the potential to be a scoring machine as a two guard, given his usually reliable jumper paired with his ability to finish at the rim in traffic, but the problem is that the Pacers are stacked at the two guard, and have no points.  Hill manages to be a middle of the pack point guard, even if the two is his natural position.  So, by default, he is the Pacers point guard.

So, how do you solve this problem?  Well, given the log jam at the two guard, maybe you move one of them for a point.  Or you move Danny Granger for a point.  Problem is, I don't see any scenario that gives the Pacers an upgrade at the point position for what they are willing to move.  Granger doesn't buy you an upgrade over Hill.  Neither does Stephenson. If Hill's contract were more attractive (i.e., if he were undervalued, which he is not, since he just signed an extension last summer), you might be able to trade him straight up for a point, but that won't happen.  And there's no way in hell they're trading George.  The fact of the matter is that an upgrade over Hill would have to be Mike Conley level or better, and there's no way the Pacers can make that move without disrupting the team they have built.  At the end of the day, even though Hill is playing out of position, he's not a terrible point guard.  The price of the upgrade would be too high.  The best option, though it goes against every fiber of the NBA GM DNA, is to just hold tight and hope that Hill learns to be a better point guard.

Besides, Hill is an Indianapolis native with a map of the state of Indiana tattooed on his freaking torso.  You can't trade the guy for that reason alone.

And therein lies the theme of the Pacers' offseason:  keep calm, stand pat, don't panic.  For the first time in a long time, it seems like growth is the best option for the Pacers' roster.  The 2013 Pacers demonstrated a rare chemistry, and front office mucking around is more likely to do harm than good.  Obviously, tweaking the bench is a good idea, but moving any big parts to do so (including Granger) is a bad idea.  Find a way to resign David West without breaking the bank, and you go into next year with a very good lineup.

*          *          *          *          *

So, what has to happen next year for the Pacers to be a top contender for a title?  We here at TDOE would need to see most (or maybe all) of these things happen to put them on the level with the Heat, the Spurs, and the Thunder:

1. A full season's worth of the 2013 playoffs version of  Roy Hibbert.  Hibbert is not the best player on the Pacers, but he has the rarest set of skills, so he may be the most important.  Roy took the biggest step in his development during the season: he learned to maintain his presence as the best rim protector in the league**** without always getting into foul trouble.  In the playoffs, he stepped up his game offensively as well . . . and for all the (justified) comments about his taking advantage of the Heat's weakness in the middle, it needs to be pointed out that Roy also dominated Tyson Chandler, the player that most people pick as the second best true center in the league.  If Roy becomes a 17/10 guy next year, then the Pacers will be a very good team.  Likelihood: Hibbert will remain a force on the defensive end, but is prone to lose his confidence on offense.  Ultimately, this will be one of Frank Vogel's primary coaching challenges: keeping his mercurial big man near the top of his game.
2. Re-sign David West.  West's size and tenacity can be replaced.  Everything else he gives to the team can not.  He is the leader of these young Pacers, and needs to be here for a couple more years as the youngsters mature.  Without him, the rebuilding is set back a couple seasons.  Likelihood:  Both parties want to get this done, so it seems like it will get done.
3. George Hill get better at running the offense.  There are ways to cover Hill's weaknesses . . . I especially like it when Paul George and Lance Stephenson take turns triggering the offense just so defenses trying to stop the ball at the point can't focus too much on Hill . . . but, as pointed out above, the team's inability to get cleanly into its offense is one of the biggest problems they have.  Unlike George and Stephenson, I think Hill is pretty close to his ceiling as a player, so any improvements will likely be incremental, which is okay: a little improvement will go a long way.  Likelihood: Hill is not going to wake up one morning with an extra step, or with a God Shamgod handle, so most of the improvement will be mental (recognition, improved reaction time, etc.).  Hill is a serious, conscientious player, so you know he'll put in the time.  Problem is that sometimes a player gets it, sometimes he doesn't.  Fingers crossed on this one.
4. The continued emergence of Paul George.  George has all the tools to be a very special player.  He has frequently played at a level that makes him not just an All-Star, but a potential All-Pro.  Next season, he needs to make the step from good player to franchise player.  To do that, he needs to be able to take over games AT WILL (as opposed to just whenever he happens to get into the flow, which is what happens now).  For years, the question has always been "Can the small-market Pacers ever attract a big star?"  Well, now they just may have one without having to go shopping.  Likelihood: Again, George has all the tools, but the final step to dominance is the most difficult; and for every Bryant, James, Wade, and Durant, there's an Artest World Peace, Boozer, Joe Johnson (and yes, Danny Granger) who can't quite take the step to the next level.  George is close, very very close, but there are no guarantees that he will ever become the guy who can take over any game whenever he wants to.
5. The return of Danny Granger, and setting a shooting guard/small forward rotation that will work without hurting team chemistry.  As noted above, the return of a fully healthy Danny Granger goes a long way to fixing the bench (even if he starts and Stephenson comes off the bench), but it also has potentially troubling issues for team chemistry.  If the average observer were to list the primary strengths of this team, it would probably start with size, youth, and athleticism.  Chemistry, however, needs to be at the top of that list: it is the unique chemistry of this team that allows them to be as resilient as they've been all season, it is chemistry that allows them to get into each other's faces without hurting each other's feelings.  It is chemistry which keeps everyone focused, and helps minimize the damage that mood swings (primarily from Hibbert and Stephenson) do to the team.  The problem is this: between Granger and Stephenson, who starts?  Stephenson started all year, and has shown himself to be an important piece of the team, so he's not going to be happy about sitting.  Add to that the fact that, as much as he's matured, he's still emotional and has a hair trigger.  Granger, for his part, doesn't have a big ego, but it will be hard to finish one season as your team's best player, miss a season due to injury, and then be asked to come off the bench.  I prefer Granger off the bench for the reasons above, but anyway it pans out, Vogel has a hard job selling everybody on the plan.  Likelihood: For one year at least, I think Vogel can keep everyone on board.  At that point it will be clear that either Stephenson or Granger deserves to start.  If both are starting caliber players, then one obviously will have to go . . . with Stephenson being the most likely in that case, since he is more likely to bring back full value than Granger.

There are a few other things, like the continued improvement of Lance Stephenson and the development of a couple bench players, that would help, but this is the main agenda.

There are, of course, a lot of factors which change the landscape of the NBA (like, I'm still waiting for Minnesota to blow up).  Among other things, it is very possible to buy a title in this league (see: Heat, Miami, and Celtics, Boston), and with at least one game-changer available in the form of Chris Paul*****, the one thing that you can guarantee is change.  For the Pacers, though, it's time to hold: the future looks very bright for this team as constituted.  

So yes, it was a good season.  A very, very good season.

____________________
*  Though they are a hell of a lot closer than such media darling "contenders" as the Knicks and the Clippers.

**  Frank Vogel has made a few comments about tinkering with a zone defense over the summer break.  This should be startling news to the rest of the league: it means he believes that the Pacers, who almost never resort to zones outside of inbounds plays, can get even better on defense, even though they are already the best defensive team (as well as the best man-to-man defenders) in the NBA.  Or, is he preparing to add an offensive-positive defense-negative piece to the lineup, and making advance plans to cover for him on the defensive end?  Either way, I can't wait to see this new wrinkle.

***  Per the discussions that attended his performance in the playoffs: I think it's clear he has all the tools, and he's made giant strides this year in confidence and basketball intelligence.  He's not quite there yet, however.  He occasionally takes over games, but he doesn't seem to be able to do it at will like true superstars can.  Right now, he's about equal to Granger at his peak, but he's got the potential to go much higher.

**** He is one of the few players who really change things in the lane.

***** I will not grant Dwight Howard game-changer status.  He has not earned that.

from The Original Text of The Ethics (2)

The original texts of The Ethics.

The Ethics, Continued

[1] [2]

the essence of things

that cracks open under the weight of a thousand questions

like daggers in the dark[3]-

bright blue day of confidence

turns out

to be a shadow of something else . . .

that something else is behind a screen,

and we’ve created the blue, or the screen,

or both

or everything

or[4] nothing

“There is a proof for that”

sez Spinoza

“and it goes like this[5]:

Jesus died for your sins;

but there are no sins,

no death,

and no Jesus.

There’s a red wheelbarrow,

and maybe Billie the Kid

but fuck that taxonomy, anyway

more or less depends on them

than you’ve been led to believe.[6] [7]”

I awake to a cold bright day

and understand that I am alone[8]

and what is left

is to breathe deep the air

and begin again,

always again[9]

There is another way,

there is always another way.[10]

*           *           *           *           *

Spinoza clears his throat:[11]

“What the masses learned to accept without reason

reason cannot refute.

And pretty baubles and grand gestures

trip the light and sell the rabble[12] [13]

while logic becomes dressed as witchcraft

and is danced

from fear

to shame,

and returns,

hollowed out,

as sham and excuse.[14]

My beautiful mathematics require commitment most find beyond the pale:

Fascists bully words to their own purpose,

while Capitalists simply purchase meaning.

The rest lack all vision.[15]

I sit here in the corpse-colored twilight,

tallow candle a-sputter,

and commit truth to the page

against all odds.”

(Spinoza doesn’t write poetry by the light of day.)

*          *           *          *          *

PART ONE[16]

“There are truths

and they are self-evident.”

Spinoza emerges into a cold dawn

candle extinguished, sheaves of parchment falling from his table,

drifting snow,

flesh snow[17]

“or, as they should be, at least.

Everything follows inexorably,[18] [19]

a calculus of the real,

a shape of what is.

Only fools question the otherwise,

for here is here.”

There is a wave and a shuffle

Spinoza turns his face to the cold sun.

“Your investments mean nothing to me.

Your lineage[20] means nothing to me.

Your rights, your culture,

that house of straw

that you defend with your dying breath?

It means nothing to me.

The essence of mankind

does not involve

the necessary existence of mankind;

this sun cares not that you caper below it.[21] [22]

You are, that’s all.” [23] [24]

Spinoza scrambles off,

rocks spraying from his feet,

then turns for a last salvo:

“The order of things

is the order of thought.

The mind is nothing not constituted by idea.

Idea is the thing,

idea is the flow

mind the machine

buckling down and locking in to the flow.[25]

The idea creates the mind

the mind delimits the idea

and its all connected,

virtually the same . . .

bodies in respect to bodies

machines in respect to machines

bodies assembled

and bodies inscrutable

machines and flows inextricable

from what wellspring?

to what ocean?”

He turned abruptly

to the stone path rising above him

and was gone in a clatter.[26]  [27]

*          *          *          *          *

A word can’t mean two things

it can mean one thing, then another

Or it can mean everything,

or the nothing at the core of everything.[28] [29]

---

[1] as to him alone does existence appertain

[2] PROP. XXV.  God is the efficient cause not only of the existence of things, but also of their essence.

[3] everything

[4] intellect in function     finite      infinite     will

[5] PROP. XXXII. Will cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary cause.

[6] eternity

[7] imperfection in God

[8] concerning created things

[9] truth

[10] I assume a starting point

[11] they only look for knowledge of the final causes of events

[12] anxious

[13] reduction, not to the impossible, but to ignorance

[14] such persons know that, with the removal of ignorance, the wonder which forms their only available means for approving and preserving their authority would vanish also.

[15] is things corrupt to the point of putridity, loathsome

[16] V.  We feel and perceive no particular things, save bodies and modes of thought

[17] power of God the free will

[18] knowledge of the cause

[19] effect

[20] things are said to exist

[21] PROP. XI.  The first element, which constitutes the actual being of the human mind, is the idea of some particular thing actually existing.

[22] modes of the attributes

[23] We thus comprehend, not only that the human mind is united to the body, but also the nature of the union between mind and body.

[24] nature of our body

[25] large superfices

[26] the human body is affected in a

[27] external body     presence

[28] one possible explanation

[29] I am very far from the truth