Landing the elite for a large price
You too! can ascent, pulled
from your spine.

Master of all,
Monster Bird,
blades chopchopchop the air

No guns here, just
a tour of the Statue of


Gazelle, brown hair,

let me touch you.

Timid beast,

child of the yellow grass,

nostrils flare.

warm-air snorts.

ears flicker forward.

Trust me.

I outstretch my hand–

BAMBI, you are my


Plato: Euthyphro

Euthyphro takes his father to court for killing a man. Socrates is not jealous of his position. Euthyphro judges the law to be above paternal love or obligation. They argue what is pious and impious.

Socrates begs Euthyphro for generalization: “Remember that I did not ask you to give me two or three examples of piety, but to explain the general idea which makes all pious things to be pious….tell me wh at is the nature of this idea, and then I shall have a standard to which I may look.” (41)

It is pious to pursue justice.

Plato: Lysis

Lysis: Old man wishes he was young again. A man Hippothales, feels slighted by not acquiring the attention of a popular young man. Socrates says that he will show Hippothales how to talk to young popular men. “I may perhaps be able to show you how to converse with him, instead of singing and reciting in the fashion of which you are accused.” (7) Socrates insists:

“If he slips away from you, the more you have praised him, the more ridiculous you will look at having lost this fairest and best of blessings; and therefore the wise lover does not praise his beloved until he has won him, because he is afraid of accidents. There is also another danger: the fair, when any one praises or magnifies them, are filled with the spirit of pride and vainglory. Do you not agree with me?” (6)

Then, Socrates makes brief statements about “lover” and “beloved in confusing terms that are grammatically and semantically outdated.

But two things are concretely salvageable within the dialogue:

  1. That the common notion of “birds of a feather flock together” or in his terms “like goes with like” is false in the sense that there needs to be completion rather than complement. He enlists the following: “The try desires the moist, the cold the hot, the bitter the sweet, the sharp the blunt, the voice the full, and the full the void, and so of all other things.” (20-21) He argues that “opposite is the food of the opposite, whereas like receives nothing from like.”
  2. There is such thing as good, evil, and not good or evil. Health is good, disease is evil and the body is neutral.


I attempted, felt prompted to define boredom. The description given, especially the continuing of nothingnness made me recall “Nausea”. In fact, it was not boredom but anxiety that was the continuation of nothingness. It produces angst! It produced a special suffering. I wouldn’t consider this real imprint of horror, angst, existential crush and dissociation. Boredom, I would consider this impression quite active. This untraceable worry and immersion into nothingness is not boredom.

Boredom is commonly understood as lack of activity or action. Most would say that the subject is bored when they are not DOING something. But I argue rather that boredom is when the subject is not ACTED UPON; that is what causes boredom.I argue that it is the external not internal force that determines boredom. Internal force is insufficient to determine boredom. Why? Because it is insufficiently challenging, perhaps because it is already known. I’m not sure.

What is this exterior force that determines boredom? Is it not desirable? Do we not appreciate that which separates us from the angst of existence?

Infinite Value

It might be argued that I am trying to talk about the thing itself, that in attempting to attain purity. Maybe I am. I like specificity and I believe in one thing contrasting another, to an extent. While there may not be a definitive beginning or end–in this way, things take on an infiinte quality (and we can perhaps say that things which are infinite have no and all value, and if all things have no beginning or end, all things are infinite. If all infinite things have no and all meaning, all things have no/all meaning.

I’ll choose concrete things to illustrate this idea, as most people are bound to turn to seemingly concrete things such as buildings and chairs for examples of permanence. Buildings are easier to explain. Everyone knows that buildings are erected and demolished and buildings only last between these two states (decisions really) for the meantime, yes building has a beginning or end but 1. not many have access to that knowledge and 2. the building is not destroyed but transformed.

In meantime, a building has a beginning and end but it would be ridiculous to determine its duration ahead of time (“We will construct this building to stand 2 years and 20 days). While we’ve been analyzing its physical alpha and omega, we haven’t yet discussed its internal alpha and omega. Meaning, buildings typically serve a purpose to live, to work, to exhibit, to park, to please aesthetically (but is this not then, sculpture? I digress) and who can say for certain when the interior will begin/end permanently– think of butcher shops converted into restaurants for instances, homes turned into museums, warehouses into clubs. As such, buildings are infinite things and therefore have no/all value.

Chairs are more difficult because they are not so fluid. It c an also be said that its beginning and end is marked by construction and destruction. Similarly, its construction rarely has its end in mind. The only addition I’ll note is its movement. Its ease of movement is worthy of remarking upon in the curious sense that people draw chairs farther or close to accommodate intimacy. Or, we can observe that chairs are used to stand upon for reaching high things. So while the primary function is to sit, we can’t se we won’t need to stand on it, and we can’t say that if we’ll be entertaining two or three guests at a time… in this senses, the chair is infinite and again, it has no/all value/meaning.


Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑