Cosa è la libertà? Chi può definirla?
Se diciamo che la libertà è la volontà di essere liberi,che è un desiderio nato con noi, arriviamo alla conclusione che noi tutti siamo liberi. Ma è vero che siamo tutti liberi? è vero che siamo tutti combattenti per la libertà allo stesso grado? io, tu, i schiavi di altri tipi? e se diciamo che questo concetto è del tutto surreale, che non esiste, e non può esistere, una definizione concreta per la parola, allora… cosa stiamo cercando? un illusione?
Semitic is a Language Group, Not a Racial or Ethnic Group
“06/27/03: One of the myths that has been perpetrated on the world is that only Jews are semites. This is totally inaccurate. Unfortunately, the ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) has made a fortune in donations and has conned most media networks and most people in the world into believing this untruth.
If one looks into the history of the word, “semite”, it has to do with a language group and no more. The semitic languages are, at least according to most linguistic experts, Amharic (spoken in Ethiopia and Eritrea, the lands once known as Abyssinia), Arabic (spoken in all the Arab countries and in many Muslim countries because it is the language of the Qur’an), Hebrew (spoken in Israel and by some Jews and others outside of Israel), Aramaic (spoken primarily by the Chaldeans of Iraq and by some Catholic and Maronite Christians in the world, at least in their church services if not in their homes or business) and Syriac (spoken by a few in various parts of Syria and in the Middle East). Incidentally, according to most linguists, Abraham, the father of the Jews and Arabs, spoke Aramaic, that was the language of the land at the time, not Hebrew.
To get back to facts about semites, Jews, language and genetics, let me go futher. The actual genetic Jews were born in the Middle East and are known as Sephardic Jews. These Jews did speak a semitic language, Hebrew , from their earliest incarnation, but also, some at the time of Christ, also spoke Aramaic, Arabic and Amharic because of their location in Jerusalem and other Middle Eastern cities such as what isnow Addis Abbabba, Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus. One rarely hears a Sephardic Jew yelling, ”anti-semite” because the know better and because he is aware of his own history within semitic language speaking lands.
Let me be clear about another important matter; I am not touting for people who are anti-Jewish or anti-Arab, or anti-any ethnic or racial group; those people who stereotype or attack others based on their race or ethnicity are dead wrong and should be condemned—so too should those who abuse labels and use them wrongly to stop others from being justifiably critical should also be condemned (and in this case, I am referring to the ADL and other groups of that sort who label people with impunity and carelessness, sometimes wrecking their careers, their reputations, their businesses and their lives!)
Thus, when a person from the ADL calls someone who is critical of Israel, Zionists or Zionism, an “anti-semite”, this is pure nonsense. The person speaking is simply critical of Israel or Zionism. Also, if a person speaks against an Arab, and as I pointed out, Arabs speak a semitic language, he may be anti-Arab, but he is not “anti-semitic.”. In both cases, the person may be anti-zionist or may be a racist and be anti-Jewish or anti-Arab, but the person is SIMPLY NOT ANTI-SEMITIC.”
It is most curious that the posts that harvest the most comments (and supposedly generate most reactions and/or debates) are either political or personal.
Should I take it that people enjoy politics and gossip more than literature? (I have an uneasy feeling about the answer to this question) What do you think?
Taken from the Vatican’s website, this is the bit in Pope Benedict’s speech -mentioning Islam- at the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006:
“…I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.”
“In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”
I landed upon an interesting blog, called “Thinking Blog”, whose author wrote about the Pope’s speech, and here’s what he said:
“When someone is in a position of power; their words, deeds, speeches, and public addresses are under continuous and immense scrutiny equally by those who follow them and those who don’t. The Pope is no exception, especially when we consider that any thing said by the Pontiff is considered doctrine by millions of Catholics around the world given its ex cathedra nature.
Let me first start by saying that whatever his intentions were, what the Pope said the other day lacked political awareness of, or sensitivity to, the worldwide brewing conflict between Islam and Christianity.
Nevertheless, if you read the whole transcript, available here, you’d be surprised that his speech had nothing to do with Islam, the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), or Jihad in any way shape or form aside from an ill-chosen quote from a conversation between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402.
In general, I have 3 main issues with this whole curfuffle:
1. Again, the media is playing its dirty role of propagating information without context to create headlines and promote sales, ratings, and readership to the derangement of the small minority of sensible human beings in the world.
2 . Because of the first issue, we’re getting a knee-jerk reaction from Muslims who, like the general population of planet earth, can’t really understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Pope’s speech and its goals.
3. The quote above, as I said, was ill-chosen for the occasion and purpose (unless the Pope has a hidden motive which is beyond the realm of anyone’s inquisition and hence a futile assumption) and it also lacked political sensitivity given the global circumstances.
Of equal importance is the fact that the Pope’s conjectures embedded within the quote are actually inaccurate reflecting the Pop’s ignorance about Islam for the following reasons:
a. Surah 2, Verse 256 which the Pope concludes to be from the earlier “powerless” days of Prophet Mohammed was actually revealed in Madina where Prophet Mohammed enjoyed unsurpassed strength and autonomy in his prophetic career.
b. The belief that God is absolutely transcendent, is not even bound by his own word, and that reason cannot be applied to God from an Islamic theological perspective that the “expert” Theodore Khoury attributes to “Ibn Hazn” (actually its Ibn-Hazm, but I don’t know if this is Khoury’s mistake or the Pope’s) is by far a marginal opinion in Islamic theology adopted by only Ibn-Hazm and his school of thought (the Zahiri school of thought). This school is long gone although Wahabbi Jihadism has some similarities to it.
In closing, Muslims should relax because the quote was ill-chosen, that’s it! But then again, conspiracy theorists supported by how the media reports these things will find ample evidence of the global conspiracy against Islam.
Although I tried to be rational I don’t expect rationality to prevail in this situation given how volatile the situation is and the Muslim self inflicted position of victimhood which, supported by conspiracy theories, will make a big soap opera out of this whole thing.
What Pope Benedict XVI hoped to be an enlightening speech about faith and reason is certainly turning into an Egg Benedict when there’s faith without reason!”
Then I also found this quite interesting (Title: Pope disses Islam, invokes Byzantine emperor who fought Turks), the author says;
“The Times notes that in the weeks after John Paul’s death in April 2005, the question of Islam was a key issue in the selection of a new pope. As a candidate, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who took the name Benedict after his election, embodied the more skeptical school within the Vatican. Unlike John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger did not approve of joint prayers with Muslims and was skeptical of the value of inter-religious dialogue. In 2004, he caused a stir by opposing membership in the European Union for Turkey, saying that it “always represented another continent throughout history, in permanent contrast with Europe.”
In his first trip outside Italy as pope, he met with Muslim leaders in Cologne, where he said Catholics and Muslims must overcome differences, but also told them they had the responsibility to teach their children against terrorism, which he called “the darkness of a new barbarism.”
Last summer, he devoted an annual weekend of study with former graduate students to Islam. Notes the Times: “In that meeting, and since, he has reportedly expressed skepticism about Islam’s openness to change, given its view of the Koran as the unchangeable word of God.”
Then adds:
“Aiman Mazyek, president of Germany’s Central Council of Muslims said: “After the bloodstained conversions in South America, the crusades in the Muslim world, the coercion of the Church by Hitler’s regime, and even the coining of the phrase ‘holy war’ by Pope Urban II, I do not think the Church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions.
Significantly (as the Chronology of Greek History at the Greek Folk Dance Resource Manual website reminds us), Manuel II Paleologus was Byzantine emperor when Constantinople was first besieged by the Ottoman Turks under Sultan Bayezid I in 1393. Pretty amazing that none of the media accounts have noted this rather salient fact. Constantinople finally fell to the Turks in 1453 under Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus, son of Manuel II.”
Then I found yet another engaging website (Religioustolerance) that, in the bits that I shall quote, lists a number of reactions of non-Muslims to the Pope’s unwise and uncalled-for reference:
“Renzo Guolo, professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Padua referred to the pope’s suggestion that Islam is distant from reason:
“This is maybe the strongest criticism because he doesn’t speak of fundamentalist Islam but of Islam generally. Not all Islam, thank God, is fundamentalist.”The Rev. Daniel A. Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome said that the main focus of the speech was that:
“If we are really going into a serious dialogue with Muslims we need to take faith seriously.”Referring to quote from the emperor, he said:
“You clearly take a risk using an example like that.”
Marco Politi, reporter from the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, said:
“The text reveals his deep mistrust regarding the aggressive side of Islam. Certainly he closes the door to an idea which was very dear to John Paul II — the idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims have the same God and have to pray together to the same God.”Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo said:
“What we have right now are public reactions to the pope’s comments from political and religious figures, but I’m not optimistic concerning the reaction from the general public, especially since we have no correction from the Vatican.”The Rev. Robert Taft, a specialist in Islamic affairs at Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute, said that it was unlikely that the pope miscalculated how some Muslims would receive his speech. Taft said:
“The message he is sending is very, very clear, Violence in the name of faith is never acceptable in any religion and that (the pope) considers it his duty to challenge Islam and anyone else on this.”German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the German-born pope, saying his message had been misunderstood. “It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope has explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently necessary,” she said Friday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said:
“We understand perfectly how sensitive this sphere is. I think it would be right if we call for responsibility and restraint from the leaders of all world faiths.”According to USA Today:
“Vatican officials insisted the pope did not intend to be offensive and expressed regret over any hurt caused to Muslims.”
In the Qur’an, Allah says (And this is the same Aya that the Pope quoted, and advanced to say that it was from a Sura revealed in Mecca,not Medina – a terrible mistake appropriate to the greater fallacy in his speech):
“There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has indeed become distinct from the wrong. So whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All Hearing, All Knowing”
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256)
Without doubt, there are many other resources that one could resort to in order to be able to dissect the intentions of the Pope and the various reactions to his speech. For him to quote an Emperor, who had to give up a favorite city to the Ottomans and who had clearly disliked them for that, on a major world religion whose followers, right or wrong as they may be, are constantly provoked , is an imprudent act.
The issue at hand is not what the Pope meant or did not mean, because after all he could have quoted some other major historical figure on, say Judiasm or any other religion, (and in the case of the clever word-play of the Vatican’s secretary of state, cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who said that the Pope meant to undertake “certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come.” — he could’ve at least cited another “violent interpretation” of another religion if he did not want to take Islam out of the affair, just humor the public, your eminence). I take my stand as pertains to the Pope’s timing and selection, as well as the comparison he drew between Jihad and the Christian Holy War.
The Pope’s timing was inappropriate, his selection of quotations was unwise, and the parallel he constructed between Jihad and the Christian Holy War is unfounded. Consequently, this leaves me wondering about the nature of his intentions, as well as the credibility of his sources. You do not attack secularism and mistakenly slip in a quote by a biased Emperor, which also happens to be offensive to the sensitivities of many people.
There are those who say that the Pope was trying to point out that religion and violence are not a good combination, and that the reactions of many Muslims to this speech were indeed a confirmation that what they embrace is a violent religion; I think that is an oversimplification and a sign of naiveté. For the sake of argument, in hypothesis, if you, who are civil and in general superior to the grand public, understand that this public is no more than an angry, violent mob, would you provoke it? If you do, how wise are you?
In my opinion, violent reactions to most situations do not solve any problem and sly provocations do not gather good results. But I would take those who put themselves at a pedestal and talk about the “barbarians” to task when it comes to their understanding of current times, because if they do understand current times, their actions would not go out only to prove that those barbarians are really, truly, barbarians only for them to point out and say “Ah, see, we told you so”. How different are they from those they look down on and provoke? Shouldn’t they take a bigger share of responsibility for what their actions generate, since they are better informed and refined?
This was just a general record of what I have read and the reactions I came across for Pope Benedict’s recent speech. My own interpretations are also thrown in there, and I am earnestly amazed at some of the nonsense ultra-philosophical renderings of what is happening. On to world peace, in Utopia.
Two days ago, a highly-educated American man in his early 60’s asked a group of Jordanian youth:
“Do you know what a circus is?”.
“Do you have Barbie dolls?”.
Then added:
“I have not seen a camel yet!”.
It is with great disgust that we received the news of the unwise “quotations” in Pope Benedict’s speech in Bavaria. That was in poor taste, your eminence. Really now, let us not quote and attempt to deceive by wrapping opinions in other people’s lips – dead people’s lips.
After reading three books over the weekend, I can confirm that I feel slightly brighter. I wonder how many books his eminence has read about, say, Christian history or cats or automobiles or, maybe even Islam. Hmm… Quite a thought.
I just pray my Catholic friends are not disturbed by this eminent mistake, as a matter of fact; I shall call them all tonight and try to console them.
Since I shall be leaving for the weekend to my beloved and most precious Karak, I decided to dedicate this post to point out just two of the ways you can learn more about this magnificent city – a place that has always been, and is, a fountain of history, strong-willed children of Jordan, and beauty.
My first source is a study by Peter Gubser, called Politics and Change in Al-Karak, Jordan: A Study of a Small Arab Town and its District. This is a great reference book for anyone interested in learning about Karak’s tribal history, economics, and way of life. The book is also available in Arabic, translated by Khaled Al Karaki, and it is excellent. It has maps of Karak’s villages, tables of Karak’s tribes and families (including mine), and documentation of major events in the lives of Karak’s people.
I bought the Arabic version of the book tonight and I got instantly hooked to reading it, partly because it treats essential aspects of the general forming of my city of origin, and partly because my own family’s past alliances and private history are recounted in it. If you don’t waste any time, you can buy this book at the Amman Book Fair from the Greater Amman Municipality stand.
The second source is not as well-trimmed as the first but I shall cite it nonetheless. It is a website (http://www.alkarak.net), and a personal effort from a certain I. Madanat to ” preserve a place for Al Karak on the web “. That very motivation is impressive to me, therefore I decided to expose it a little more. The website is not precisely the most sophisticated out there but it does what it can to provide links to pictures, news, and archaeology (using the Virtual Karak Resources Project which I had covered previously).
Interestingly, AlKarak.net has a blog section, established by I. Madanat. Unfortunately, there is only one post in this section but it is quite to the point:
“Alright, Yo all karakies lets get our Blog working…”
This is the day I discovered my father can swear in Italian and my mother thought I looked prettier than Penelope Cruz and that I have started a ritual of mentally addressing myself in third person.
If you have not yet been to the Amman Book Fair, you are missing out on a lot of good books that are selling for cheap. I took myself today and went there, shopping for books, but I had no idea that I will bag a total of 22 books by the end of my rather shortish trip.
The fair was very organized and the crowd was not too thick as to annoy me. I was alone, which is the way I like to shop for books – alone so I can enjoy them, and touch them, and not be thought a freak. That’s a bit of wishful thinking because as I browsed through the fair with big bags full of books, unable to walk properly because they were so heavy and my hands turned red, people stared at me. I didn’t mind.
I am writing this post to encourage each and every one of you to visit the Amman Book Fair before all the good and cheap books are sold. In particular, I would recommend you visit the UBCC stand because the most expensive book there sells for JD 3. I bought 18 books from that place.
Pictures, pictures:
And here’s my new book collection :
A list of my new reading list:
- Modern British Literature – Kermode and Hollander
- The Rise and Fall of the House of Medici – Hibbert
- When in Rome – Townley
- The Sixteen Satires – Juvenal
- Crime and Punishment – Dostoyevsky
- The Jew of Malta – Marlowe
- Eugene Onegin – Pushkin
- Fontamara – Ignazio Silone
- The Illiad – Homer
- Nineteen Eighty-Four – Orwell
- Animal Farm – Orwell
- Plays – Chekhov
- Metamorphosis and other stories – Kafka
- A Doll’s House and other plays – Ibsen
- The Art of War – Sun-tzu
- The Aeneid – Virgil
- A Tale of Two Cities – Dickens
- The Collected Works of Oscar Wilde – Wordsworth Editions
- Social Psychology – Aronson, Wilson, Akert
- Segni e percorsi, storia e antologia della letterature italiana (cinquecento, seicento e settecento) Vol.II – Vanalesti
- Segni e percorsi, storia e antologia della letterature italiana (ottocento) Vol III. Tomo I – Vanalesti
- Segni e percorsi, storia e antologia della letterature italiana (novecento) Vol III. Tomo II – Vanalesti
On top of all that, I got three books of my wish list as a gift from a friend ! I also bumped into Lina and spilled my heart out about the book fair “You have to go!” , and I got what I feel is a brilliant job offer.
What a day!
It’s amazing how much less items I carry around in my bag compared to the ladies who answered the “bag tag”. I do not think I even need to put up the little numbered circles and create a list explaining all the items, here – see for yourself.
Most of the time I only have my cell phone, wallet, and tissues as key elements. Then the variables come in and they are usually; keys,book,camera,etc. It’s awkward really comparing the contents of my bag to all the ladies’, but this means I can do with any size of bag and this is definitely a plus.
For a bit of history, this bag in the picture was my mother’s. It’s over 25 years old and I love it like no other. Exotic and personal- just the way I love them.
The story behind this story is somewhat entertaining. I wrote this following story, The party people, in half an hour for the final examination of my creative writing class. The task specified in the exam was to “describe a party scene in detail, going in and out of your characters’ minds” – or something to that effect (I do not have the exam paper on me at this moment, did I ever mention that I collect them papers? loads upon loads of them?).
Since I do not appreciate drafts, or use them for that matter, I wrote the story and submitted it as is. I usually write and submit/publish instantly, and I rarely if ever change anything in the “completed piece” because when I finish pouring my thoughts I would have had just enough of them and would not want to read them too soon. Question: Is that abnormal?
At any rate, the story had a nice ending, one that I cannot entirely remember. This story is about the party crowd, in all its “phoniness” and shallowness. You see Jill and Mike together, who are the main characters, portraying a “good couple” image while each is having private thoughts which are extremely contrastive to each other. She thinks he’s nice while he’s faking it. The “twist” at the end, that I cannot bring myself to write at this time, is when one of Mike’s friends tells Jill ” Don’t worry honey, we won’t judge you” – after, of course, having judged her already.
Enjoy…hopefully.
.
.
.
The spacious hall is bustling with people; some standing, some sitting and others swaying to the music while trying to sip on a lime-green liquid. The feature almost dominant in the scene, and which everyone adores, is the large, silver disco ball hanging from the ceiling. It adds a unique retro taste to the place and definitely helps joy-fakers fake some more.
With walls painted soothing blue, the open bar in the far right corner seems like a long-lost island. A Mecca for the thirsty and the naughty alike.
What with the revealing outfits, the fits of hysterical laughter, and the crazy atmosphere of dancing mindlessly, someone was bound to drop their glass because, you know, it’s not a party until something gets broken.
- “Oh my god! I just dropped my glass in front of all these people. Now they’re going to really think I’m so drunk”, Jill thinks to herself. “I’m terribly sorry”, she announces aloud, “really, I am”.
Her companion, Mike, tries to calm her frenzy.
- “It’s O.K. Nobody saw that”. He says.
-” Oh! They all think I’m drunk, don’t they?”
He thinks “I’m one of them!”, but says “No, they don’t. You’re overreacting. It’s just a party, so what if you dropped your glass, relax.”
-” Mom would be so proud of me if she sees me now like this. Oh my god!”. Jill goes on. “He’s such a nice guy”, she says to herself.
-”This is not right. This is so not right. I’m stuck with- with this drunken psycho”, Mike almost whispers.
-” Come again?”
-”I was just saying we need to get you another refreshing drink, and the party over there. Hey guys!”. He waves at a group of guys and girls at some table.
Jill feels flattered that he wants to introduce her to his crowd, little does she know.
-” I’ll go get another drink. I’ll join you at the table,” she tells him.
Mike, now with his friends, proceeds to telling them about his absent partner: “She’s been drinking non-stop ever since we got here. I think she has a problem, she couldn’t even keep on to her glass! Impossible!… Oh here she comes.”
-”Jill, this is Martha, Allison, Pat, and Ed. Everyone, this is Jill”.
.
.
.
Joe, of Joe Cartoon, after dubbing a cartoon “Goanna Humpah” and featuring the now-deceased Aussie naturalist, mourns Steve Irwin – in his own way.
I have just found my muse, I believe…
What I am experiencing at this minute, as I type these words, is exquisite – it is of satisfaction still unachieved but oh, so near, and it is of accelerating beauty and of a divine nature. I cannot quite tell what it is, there are no words befitting this sensation.
A little less than a month ago I decided to follow my bliss, as Campbell put it. I stayed up until all night was consumed, listening to Campbell talk of love and divinity and great myths – truly phenomenal. A gift from overseas sent by a person I have never met ,as token of a friendship that has grown and grown, this gift had me stay up all night, one summer’s night, and it urged me to focus on what really matters to me – my bliss.
Then as I have always known, the pre-hero has to die to the world as it knows him, to be resurrected as a true hero. All in the name of bliss and in all great myths alike. I am no heroine, my life is not a myth, but I am hunting for my bliss. Of course, I could be a heroine, this could be a myth, but there would still be bliss to be sought after.
Sometimes when I am inspired I lose my touch with the physical world, even words do not come to me. I float, dip, dive in a state of absolute ecstasy and only this can help me to that sublime level. In this very instance I am fighting an undeniable urge to pour out my stream of consciousness, as I trust nobody would understand my stream of consciousness and I disliked The Portrait of The Artist As a Young Man.
Beh. Very few understand this.
I am going downtown this evening to roam the streets and look for antiques. I intend to spend money on things useless in every aspect but in appealing to me, that is their prime function. My room is Japanese akasen meets style-lacking minimalism, and that has got to change. I am most inspired by a certain someone’s flat and I plan on indulging in this moment’s fantasy that maybe I can turn my room into something remotely alluding to that flat, in spirit not style.
I am staying up late at night to write. Last night I wrote two passages only after juicing my brain for two hours – quite distressing. This is promising though, two passages are better than none…but really, I am not an optimist supreme. Quite frankly I do not write out of optimism, my statement is not all too positive, I daresay it is not even real.
Do not ask what that means – I think the stream is flowing.
This morning as I watched Tsuki-san lick himself, I wondered with what face would I meet a certain someone who has given me two novels written by an Italian Jew to read, well over four months ago. I have not touched the two books…They lurk in my drawer virgin, what am I going to say this time? That I was too busy? That I had no mood to read? That I was busy deciding how to follow my bliss? I can picture the dissatisfied look on his face, and I cannot convince it away.
I ended up buying myself Sophie’s World after all two days ago, but it must wait for now. I am engaged to Plato, although he is not entirely my type of fellow. I do fancy his dialogues, however, but is that ever enough? It’s page 42, out of 368 pages, that I am frozen at. What with the construction of argument, and the various points of view, and the messages I keep getting on my cell phone, and my own arguments with Plato; I am frozen at page 42.
When I am inspired certain music does not agree with me. Sometimes the slightest sound does not agree with me, sometimes just some songs by a certain singer don’t agree with me. This is how illusive and demanding my muse is, my mother once thought it a devil.
Now I just want an old radio.
