9.23.2005

hunter-gatherers of language

Is it Ezra Pound who writes of the "word-hoard"? I remember Ol' Andy Schelling using that phrase. If he was a meaner cowboy, he'd shoot any man called 'im Andy.

Is the pistolero concealed in

a) a hollowed-out copy of the Cantos?
b) the red checkered scarf! the scarf! although if he were a meaner cowboy, he'd shoot me and say "bandana."

Last night, Sara Larsen and I were comparingnotes on field composition. We were exploring that word f i e l d -

a plane we cross, but which presents no particular path to cross except its own contours, and how they intersect with our body and its desires (two feet and i can get tired so i will follow the low road, and i can get hungry for a view, so i'll mount the high).

field composition may have eco-zones of transition (where forest meets plain, say), but it lacks clear beginning and end in the sense of a laid-out "start-here" path. It is not labyrinthian, or maze-like. It avoids that duality? Or is it more of a n-th degree labryinth?

There's a labryinth at one of the main SF cathedrals, its an Episcopal affair, so my English wife feels at home there (actually she is as shy as me in churches). They have an outdoor and indoor labyrinth, both set on top of Nob Hill. we chose the indoor one.

A sign asks you to take your shoes off. Some mad atonalist is doing slow buzz-saws on the organ. Its a massive pipe organ, the music is kaleidoscopic but quiet(ish) and the colors aren't so sharp as just shifting. It sounded more avant then big bourgeois cathedral music had any right to. Bouncing around that huge space, and then abruptly turning from mmmnnlll mmmmnn lllmmmm to whlrwhlrwhlrwhrlwhrlwhrl to scrrrrttttttt scrtttttttttscrtt sctrtttrtttt scrttttttt. Was i the only one who noticed? Sun Ra on downers? I took off my shoes.

The labryinth itself is a large circle in which is laid a winding path - not a spiral, but a more complicated journey back and forth through each quadrant of the circle, nearer and nearer the center, til you are one step away, and then the path winds (if it was a hike these would be switchbacks) out to the very edge, then across to the next quadrant, and repeat. We are not alone - some walk slowly, some fast, some together, most singly. I walk slowly, eyes on the floor. One couple is giggling and holding hands - they walk increasingly fast, distracted. A few race madly through the "contemplative space". Gi-gi-gi-gi-gi stabs of organ. I can't help butnotice how many of the 15 or so people here don't seem to be volitonally on the path. Yet all abide by the rules of that path - no one cuts corners. It reminds me of Seattle, where no one jaywalks - except people didnt seem as anxious of the lights to turn there. A wispy girl slides past. I slow down. Two midle-aged ladies make no effort to accomodate you as you pass each other on the narrow path. Once you have covered all 4 quadrants - literally walking everywhere, unwinding and exhausting the space - a journey of 10 or more minutes (surprisingly long), I arrive in the center. Sarah has just left, with her faster, if even, stride. The sign encourages you to use the center in whatever fashion appropriate - it is shaped as a rose is from above, a center with each petal offering a little half-circle node along the perimeter. Its maybe 6, 7 feet across. I pick an empty node and sit down. I have never practiced in a Christian space before, only visited. As the organ sails off into glissandos, I relax on the ground and breathe. Then I think about Sarah - there she is, walking past, how far along? - thinking about time, and I rise and turn and slowly walk back.

Yet in a Duncan, Olson, or Creeley poem, unless you are keeping track of the page count, it is not so easy to note where this center is, where the turning point is. The lay of the field is unpredictable, its not such a simple pattern - one is moving through, one is immersed - the lines are a series of turns, a series of nooks, alcoves, and jumps. The temporality of moving across a series of signs, inlines, on pages, is moe complex, more folded, than that of a clearly diagramed path in an open chruch-space. The reader is free to skip lines, double back, pause where they like. Of course, this also makes it more intimidating. It also makes it more rewarding - or differently rewarding. And yet both are planned spaces, both encourage this tight focus of attention towards the units - breath, morpheme, line, stanza, page, section, work,book - the multileveled units through which we readers move.

And, if its really necessary, go ahead and put on some Philip Glass organ music and read Maximus for the full "Episcopal" effect. But props to that - Grace - Cathedral (its name). They have a beautiful and somber alcove dedicated to the victims of AIDS, and a gorgeous, incandescent series of long, rainbow-hued translucent ribbons hung in slow, waving arcs from the (flying buttresedly high ceiling. Their shape suggests whalebones, or the ark, perhaps, although it suggests it now - writing - not then.

Field, through which movement, through which hunting and gathering. Sightings of rabbit, a clutch of rosehips. Ancient pasttimes of our ancestors, now printed on paper, now pressed to the page. Duncans misspellings - pay attention. The Native scouts who could tell that a cougar or fox had passed this way a week ago, and if it was hungry or not... the infinite and sensual suggestibility of language, its arc between the abstract and concrete, its play of noun and verb. The ironic tangles of Olson's orations, his addressing. Creeley's modest, lean lines, the white space... motions like rolling and kneeling dough.

Sara photocopied me a chapter from a book by the witch Starhawk. In it she recounts the (purported) lack of nouns in Native American languages. All places were worded as verb-adjective relations. I see her critique (and Melissa Benham's) of the place of the noun, its fixed, clunky, delusional bulk (and the disasters it encourages when it finally breaks open (levee)) yet I am comofrtable with the play of particulars, with the movement between rest and motion, solid and liquid. If some writers triumph yin over yang, or the obtuse over the sincere, so deska (Jap.: oh, , okay, i see/ is that so? I say so deska to remind me of the old couple in Ozu's Tokyo Monogatari). I don't blindly trust them - I don't know if their beliefs and practices work towards liberation or suffering - but I can let it be que sera.... Whether ones actions bring ruination or joy, it is beyond me - I watch, add what I can, fight when I feel I must, but I move through this with not knowing. But the wise upaya (skillful means) is to right the imbalance, to adjust for maximum flow, to note and dissolve the blocks. And, in our present culture, tilting towards the play of verb state in the dictionary, stessing it in the use of written signs, even in spoken ones, makes sense. As BobDoto's post on reading the dictionary points out, there are many strategies that allow this flux into the fixed museum of categories.

And yet for some individuals - better, in some particular situations - now is NOT the time for cultivating flux. Its possible to be fluxed-out, overwhelmed in the chaos of signification, sensation, mind-awareness. This can lead to a state of trauma which buries and worms its way through the entire body and psyche. Such people need the care, rest and regularity noun-states can provide - routine, support, discernment, discipline - the ability to stand up again and pilot through the world. Critiquing them for their slant this way is not-looking, is the blindness of prejudice and belief. I've been guilty of prescriptive mono-ideology, of assuming that one shoe fits all feet, at all times. Some fuckers have had their legs clean blasted off. Difference. Appreciating, respecting, intuiting difference - its a long fucking haul for a white kid from the suburbs.

So shephards, fruit-eaters, seed-pickers, tractor-slayers. So.

14 Comments:

Blogger Dylan Hock said...

Hey Kyle,

like this post. Was thinking, I've heard poetry is nouns/objects and prose is action; could a new area to explore be prose? the novel? fiction? What about a novel that works much more in the way Native American languages use the verb-adjective phrase for a location. Could be just as easily done with nouns as a whole, I think. I wonder how that would sound/read? Maybe I'll try a short story like that and send it to you for El Pobre.

dylan

6:04 PM  
Blogger Kyle said...

i would be interested in your findings there - both any notes, and thework itself (if such a distinction applied). sounds fascinating!

-k

6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My comment is this:

This is a great piece. It's helpful to see an article (and this is what IN/OF is all about mind you) that assumes a real use-value of poetics: how is this affecting the daily.

Another comment is this:

I think you stressed too much (or am I just reading too much into this IE projecting) the diametric split between the noun and the verb, assuming that they are relative opposites. (From here on, even if you didn;t state this, I'm going to just keep going, cause trust the work not the person right? so they say...)

To view nouns and verbs as opposites is a dangers game. It's not so much one versus the other, rather they both contain each other, or at least utilize each other's methods. I would venture to say that most people do not fell comfortable with the trainwreck style of writing of a list of nouns: car horse meal farm television. "Comfort" comes in ... ugh... I've overshot myself this comment. This is boring even me.

OK. Someone help get me back on track here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: this state of "comfort" from regulated syntax is exactly what is in question. It's not so much "not being in flux is bad" but more wht is the consiquences of only validating regularity. What does that say about cummunicative options? Noun-speak, verb-speak, these are all tools right? Or no? Limited in their scopes, but different in their effect.

The ideological danger (as Kyle points out) is assuming one must be fulfilled in total in order for it to be valid. If we can;t use verb-speak/anti-syntax in the office than what good is it? This is important to me because spiritual texts are always falling into this category. The challenge is the hermeneutics of it all (and as an aside, muslim writers today have taken heremneutics are a major theme in Qur'an inquery: what baggage do we bring to the text?) No longer so much "what" are we reading (as many of the language-writers were harping on), but rather "how" are we reading. Cause otherwise well just be searching for one kind of writing that produces a certain effect and chase after the next "fix." These subjects need to be informing our reading of the world, so that we are not bound to one form, but can navgate the whole spectrum and take from everything.

yes?

Does this have ANYTHING to do with your post?

B

7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more thing (there was so much in this article, hard to not keep commenting).

I would love to see a "field-poetics" that didn;t start off with the "define the limits of the field" move. IE [word] flush left, next [word] as far away as possible or some play with space.

When I see this, I just feel like I'm watching a bunch of pre-choregraphed moves with different content. Like: Oh yeah, space, next.

This
just

doesn't

say

field



to me.

Or maybe it does. Maybe my understanding of field poetry is exactly that: a replica of the AMERICAN filed. Highly regimented and very stylized legislated "space" for people to spend time in on weekends and leave when work starts on Monday. Having had nothing to do with its being there, though so glad they could get an apartment so close to it.

Shouldl field poetry rather be called park-poetry?

Please help. I wanna get something out of it.

7:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My field look didn't translate. you know what I meant though.

7:51 AM  
Blogger Dylan Hock said...

Hey Kyle and Bob,

once again, good discussion. Here's my problem: it seems whenever these discussions arise on poetry, or writing, I always see carrying the--how do I say this? It seems to me to carry writing to its natural extreme course, to push its limits out of the way and move ahead, so to speak, don't we just need to move away from the word? But what would writing be then? a series of paintings? photographs? It seems to me that all these mediums, every medium for capturing thought, life, emotion, any minute experience, is flawed and uncapable of representing anything more than a symbol of life, emotion, etc., or a temporal moment. I tend to think photography comes closest. But still... So the question that always arises to me is not what do we do or how do we write in a more "pure" or exacting form, but how do we work within a flawed medium. Words will never be what they represent. Ok, so what now? That being said, I continue to write and do my best to get it as close as I can, and it is the gap in that leap that the exploration continues. However, that is mainly for realistic work, portraiture almost. What about work that chooses to try to express emotion rather than plot? I think there is more room for that in the way that music, tone, can bring about emotion and I do think language (content aside) has the ability to stir emotion just from the sounds generated by the phonemes. When I see work as I have even in our circle that is a bunch of Jackson Pollock-like words printed over and over each other until the text becomes illegible I only feel one thing, anger. That, I mean I feel from the text, as if it were the writer's intent, not my own anger. But still, I have to say those pieces or parts of pieces leave something to be desired for me. Because, it's not a "painting" so to speak, it's still writing, but you can't read a single word, so what then? Why bother? Also, in regard to another point Bob brought up which I like very much but also leads me to another extremity--If we are always looking inside ourselves (ok, our own baggage acknowledged, of course)when is there ever any responsibility on the artist? What I'm trying to ask is, how is anyone capable of being aware of all their baggage? And everyone's lives being different, everyone has different baggage which gives them a print in a way, a thumbprint, snowflake baggage. Granted, there is a ton of cultural and media baggage, or mass baggage we all have, but then there is all the particular unique baggages that twist everyone's life into something of its own. And then there is the individual him/herself who work from that baggage as a personality and choose to work with and other times against that baggage. But who is ever fully aware of their baggage. We all know we have baggage, but who can say what all of theirs is? It seems this route takes me to everything becoming a therapy session, a looking in at our selves. I tend to think it is both. Can't leave either out. Look at the work, look inside, how do the two relate? The work makes you feel this way, you recognize that is because you were molested at three. Ok, so where does that leave you? I'm not saying this right. I think it goes without saying that baggage is there and effects our judgements and reactions. But I don't dive into my baggage, I just accept it for who I am. In a way, I trust it. Because I am capable, for the most part, of discerning the good baggage from the bad. All that baggage I couldn't possibly remember the entirety of, steers my everyday and I'm constantly adding more baggage. I've got baggage effecting how I add baggage, and the weight will grow until we die. So, yeah, I agree Bob, but for me, seems to go without saying and since we all have baggage how do we live/experience life without turning everything into self reflection and therapy? Am I way off here? None of this has to do with field comp. Let me take a look at what I've got here...

Well, I leave it there for better or worse.

8:02 AM  
Blogger Dylan Hock said...

Ah, I remember one thing I wanted to say. Even our reactions, thoughts, and comments on this post come from our own baggage. Everyone's hung up on their own baggage which I would really call their collective personality. See, kind of getting back to our last conversation a little. I accept my baggage just as I accept others'. That's why I feel comfortable saying I don't like something, and that's why I find it interesting if someone else does. From there you can talk and begin to understand each others' baggage. It's negative capablity and an openness, a multiculturalism in a way of micro cultures made up by each indiviual and their baggage. I accept their baggage, even if it is totally oppositional to my own because it is them and they have a right to be who they are and say and feel as they do, just as I do. So, ah, I guess what I'm trying to say, (maybe I stumbled on it) is rather than diving into our own baggage everytime we experience anything, getting a cup of coffee, taking a shower, we just accept/trust our baggage and in that, accept/trust ourselves AND EACH OTHER (not yelling that.) Very important to accept others' because not accepting theirs is negation of our own as well.
D

8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.
To start I would that to simply say: yes we all have baggage so now what? is to miss a very great opportunity. This isn't a therapy session (although for some may be theraputic) but a chance to first acknowledge that our own perceptions and judgements of a pice are very much our stuff. It's not enough to just say "next" because something happens when a person truly "owns" their comment. These aren;t opposties: judgement and self-reflection, like you do one or the other and they have equal and oppostie manifestations. To own your shit is aa practice at really employing a democratic process or dare I say anarchic process.

It's also not about not syaing you don;t like something. It's about going beyond that for yourself. Not for me. Ultimately I can care less if youre not into my stuff, but it only benefits you to go deeper into what you may think a piece sucks. In doing so you may also open up an opportunity for conversation rather than take stakes on a position. This isn't about being gentle. this si radical presence, checking ourselves first.

this idea that you're you and I'm me is just a dead end. It goes nowhere. Because from what I have seen that mentality simply demarcates separte non-communitive quadrants. Subgenres and such that claim, hey we don;t care what they do as long as they dont care what we do, just leaves a stale scene. the objective is to communicate. Unless youre just a writer in your room expressing yourself and just hoping someone will care...

The bottom line is, if I finally come out and say Dylan, I think your shit sucks, which I do, than you can see what kind of position I have set up. sure, you don;t have to care, but I've pretty much closed off communication, because what I'm saying is that this is where I stand and you can be with me or against me. And just o clean up, I DO NOT think your writing sucks. not in the slightest, but I think you get my point. the feeling you no doubt got was that I was digging into "my world" and awaitin gyour response.

2.
I do not think wiritng is pure form or a form that should be purified. What I think you are missing is that if you are writing to "capture" a thought, then you have already missed the boat. The language-writers attempted to show us that the word itself was the thing. Investigate the word. we put so much attention on the idea outside of the word, or the thing pointed to by a word, that we miss the underlying politics in language/syntax. (My next blog will speak exactly to this!) so in this sense, it's not like: "damn, I missed it again. i just couldnt capture my thoughts well enough," but rather "is there a way that i can engage people in the "process" of word/language making? is there a way that I can elucidate the possibly hidden agenda in laguage itself? Which is I think what soem of the more deeply concrete writers (those who annoy you by make illegible print) are trying to do. Again. You get mad. because it's illegible. And to you, writing is writing and painting is painting. "It's not a painting." "It's illegible" "so why bother?" Maybe (and this is why i stress self-crtque first) you are too rigid in your definition of writing. Maybe the illegibility was an attempt to forground the material quality of writing as opposed to the logo-centric. Not to say that this is going to blow everyone away. but the reasoning for your resistence to it is much more interesting to me as a writer and to the writing community at large than your stance on whether or not you like it or feel it is worth the "bother."

3. As far as baggage is concerned. This is hermeneutics. this is the "how" we read texts. This is ridiculously important since we as humans are interpreters and need to interpret. what we have within Islam and all spiritual traditions is a war of interpretation. This "baggae" that we bring to a piece and investigating it is so necessary that without it you have planes flying into buildings, bombs over baghdad, occupation of Palestine and mine and Dylan's world as we know it thrown completely into amok. That is the direct result of a sidestepping of the baggage issue. the occupation of Palestine is directly related to hermeneutics (what baggage we bring to writing) of spiritul texts. We need to recognize what we bring to a piece of writing etc.. so that we dont end up assaulting and marginalizing women, other races, etc.... yes we will never know "all" of our baggae, but that is no excus to sidestep it by simply saying: look we all have it. not good enough. If you believe that what you do is important, than take responsibility for your coming to other important works by checking as much of your baggage at the door, or at the very least, letting your guest (the space between two people discussing a work) knwo the amount of bagge you are bringing so they can make room for you and your guest.

B

5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a final clear up. I do think that dylan you are seeing baggage as something we all have and why dont we just take comfort or "trust" in that. Just to reiterate, because it is very timley. the study of how we read the world, is a pro-human practice. Not that you can;t check someone else as well, there is no one or the other here. this is about making a concious effort to REALLY engage our own reading and handicaps. If we were to live in a place that was making up a constitution today or everything got fucked up and babies had limbs blown off and there was a new constitution being drawn up, you;d be damn sure to check the interpretation of that that language and how it is going to be intepreted. to watch the constitution unfolding in Iraq is ridiculous. Arabs really are smarter than we are! :) I go to websites where young arabs are tracking the wording of the document from day to day, tracking what was left out the next draft or what was put in. because to them, they understand that someone is going to have to interpret this document when someone seals an orange, and they want to know what is going to happen to that person. how will the law be intrpreted. in the states, checking the baggage of a judge is going down right now with roberts. people want to know his political history. why. because they want to knwo what baggage he brings to words like: rights, abortion, affirmitive action, civil liberties. How does he read those words. What I am calling for here, is that what we are doing is in a way a practice for reading the larger world. Poetry has always stressed that in some form. The idealist says that poetry takes the literal world and recontextualizes it in such as way as to hopefully make the reader re-assess their assumptions about what they see. (now of course from this there is much to talk about) but maybe you see my point. I;m much more interested in WHY dylan says: why bother, then dylan simply saying: why bother. But i ask you to tell me, so I donlt have to tell you or anyone else in that position.

this is really a care package. cause when someone makes a comment I immediately want to knwo why they feel that way. and it's better if they already know than putting me inthe position of having to make up my own story. I was in the poetry track remember. Not the prose.
b

5:51 PM  
Blogger Dylan Hock said...

wow Bob, so much there hard to know where to comment without forgetting some of what you're saying, but let me say that you definitely misunderstood a lot of my point, for whoever's reason, but from what I've read from you, I feel like we are saying the exact same thing from different angles. I don't know what else to say. Its like we're missing each other somewhere on a topic we agree on. I feel the same. Without the communication and interaction, there is nothing. See, the thing here is, we are two good minds and I make leaps that I assume you are following, but for one reason or another, we are not following each other. Anway, saying something might not be to my taste is not toward a person's entire body of work, it is toward an aspect, or piece, or phrase and is only the smallest bit of a larger conversation. You see? I'm just saying don't be afraid to express your mind and how you feel. Otherwise the communication you speak of becomes false. So, I can see and understand text that types all over itself, but what I'm saying is, in such a situation why use language at all? And so someone does choose to use language to such a purpose, sure I can even see and understand/appreciate it, but that doesn't mean it's the work that makes me want to write, that excites me, and that is what I'm always looking for. Anyway, I hear artists being bashed all the time. It's our culture. Sure folks get huffy if you badmouth an "artist" but then turn around and talk shit about the latest band on the top 40. So I'm saying, let's not be hypocrites about it. And let's not hide from each other. This is important to me. Also, I don't buy that people can check their baggage at the door, it's who they are and they can't "side step" THAT. To say you are doing so is, I believe, false and slightly schizophrenic. By saying I accept my baggage and work from their is "owning" my identity with a full knowledge that it is made up of baggage and layer upon layer of suspect influences. But still, they make me who I am and from there is where I work. Unresponsible? I take complete responsiblity for my words and actions. I own them. They are me. I guess, I see that our philosophies and outlooks are radically different, but we are heading toward the same light with best intentions and I value your critique and insight. And of course I agree to write to capture an exact thought is a lost cause, but to write a thought and be comfortable and aware that it will be read and translated into others' thoughts is just fine and wonderful. No problem with that. Anyway, either I'm missing something or you and Kyle are getting seriously hung up on this "don't dig" business. It makes me sound like an asshole from your angles, I think. I don't know what else to say on that except that it is only an allowance to say what I feel and be honest about it but, and here is the capital letters part IT IS ONLY A TINY TINY BIT OF A MUCH LARGER CONVERSATION. A civil, mind you, conversation, say, between myself and, say, Sean, where I tell my buddy that I love his work but paragraph three left me flat. Constructive, yes? Anyway... I really like what you say about bringing the reader on the journey though. I agree very much. My resistance is to leaving myself in a place where nothing is nothing. Where everything is exploration of the self. Sounds too narcissistic to me. By the way, I didn't say I got mad at Pollock-type, suggested could've been one reason to present page in that way by the writer (one of many possibilities). So, to jump around some more, claiming dislike for section of piece or piece is only a prelude to constructive comments and notes on effect and why, see? But the initial comment is there. I've talked to many writers and told them comments like these about their own works and no one has ever gotten angry with me (to my face) because I always bring in the investigation with me and show them the crumbs I followed that led me to the space their piece left me in. Enough of that topic anyway, I'm tired of it. I also agree that ignoring and sidestepping baggage plays a major role in world conflict, mainly because the US is too powerful to feel it needs to consider anyone else's. To say look we all have it is an acknowledgement and an acceptance, allowing an ownership from there. Where are we talking at cross purposes? Maybe my angle is coming from a place of self analysis over a whole life and maybe others don't do the same, I took it for granted for a long time that they do, but the answer...who's to say? Anyway, I'm very intune with my "self" and my "baggage" so I feel I own my speech/actions/thoughts because of that and also combined with a knowledge of bogus influence from every direction. Ah, I don't know Bob and frankly I don't care. My gut tells me all this is sidelines anyway. The conversation I mean. Like talking over a game call when it can all be worked out in the game itself, if you keep at it. Love your ideas though. Maybe you could recommend some good books for me to check out that deal with the thoughts you're sharing. Thanks.

Dylan

6:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the comments Dylan. Youre right, you cant check your baggage at the door. I knew when I wrote that that it wasnt what I meant but couldnt bare to go back and erase it. the computer Im using has a keyboard problem.

I don't think we are saying the same things, but at this point thats irrelevent i guess. In closing, I am absolutely not saying that a person shouldnt criticise another's work. Im not saying that a friend is going to get offended if you tell them that something they did sucks, or that I would get offended. I'm calling out an impulse really... but further on this would need an in person account. I guess these are good for generating ideas, but getting deep just doesnt happen. ah the human to human!

Great "talking?" though. I'll let the comments speak for themselves at this point.

Much love and hope you and the fam are well.
B

7:24 PM  
Blogger Dylan Hock said...

Hey Bob, can be frustrating. I was wondering if I could call you sometime acutally and we could have a real talk. I know we could straighten this out with some actual talking, or we could go in an entirely new direction. Funny you don't think we're talking about the same thing. That really has me wondering. Still would like you to give me some pointers in a book or two to investigate some of this further and maybe come to see more of what you're saying. But then, I couldn't necessarily come up with a decent list for you on the flipside. All best to you too my friend. Here's to losing your head.

D

7:32 PM  
Blogger Dylan Hock said...

Hey Bob, wanted to mention too something Kyle and I ran into, the "you's" I used are general you's, not directed at you/Bob. Reread some of that and can sound nasty without that distinction. I'm not intending to get in your face. Just pushing around ideas.

D

7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant to write something similar in that, I'm not really adressing you Dylan as much as I am address this concept we keep beating around. That's impossible for you to know, however, since on more than one occasion I am literally saying "you, Dylan." Something for me to work on.

Of course you can call me. I'll email you my number.

And a book list on what in particular. We talked baou tso much I just want to make sure. But I will def. hip you to what I have read. If it's something specific.

Hermeneutics? I posted a new blog that relates a smidgen o fsome of these ideas.
B

6:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

another small chapter in los dialecticas pobre