Sometimes I cry out to you at night--My belly stuffed with cello strings. Lunar eclipse, bodies fall, minds converge. The only true vacuum is the soul, the only real emptiness is felt in the soul. gnashing sound, blinding light. Spirits gnawed my flesh. Stamper, tic, curse, pull hair, bite, scream into imaginary lips. Empathy for the wildflowers, sympathy for patented embryos. Reproduction no longer follows the cycle of the moon. Can’t sleep. Leave the lights on. Boil herbal tea. Chamomile, lavender, lemon balm. Don’t use water, use tears. You can use the salt left on the bottom of the pot to season vegetables. Vegetables taste funny these days, don’t they? Now plants are only grown in test tubes, there are entire forest in glass. People use to have moon viewing parties and recite poetry. Now people leave their lights on and contemplate their own deaths in silence. Why is that I always feel the most alone at the quietest hour. When the birds sing I leave insomnia in my bed and take a shower. I say, “I can hear birds, I am awake now,” I was always awake. From the time I was born I never really slept. I never really dreamed. Children come from the moon. A womb is only something a women acquires through grotesque surgery. But I hope one day I can bear fairy-tales through my womb. The moon must be tired of bearing so many children, I saw her all Bloody yesterday. The sun came up behind her. He was cruel. She must have miscarried a thousand souls. I saw it with my own eyes. That must mean that it is true. I wanted to hug her, tell her it was all right. But I was scared the sun would come after me next. So I left her there to bleed. Just like my mother, just like my brother. Thats why I like closets, and bathtubs, and sinks. That why I leave the lights on. Its better that way. The lights are blinding. They show you everything and keep you from seeing anything. All of this clatter, the tea cup fell, it shattered against your window, the sound is piercing, the moon is screaming in my belly. Sometimes I cry out to you at night, but you never answer.

Embracing The Phenomenology of Science

A man opens the door holding a large knife. He speaks in a loud voice incomprehensible to the people sipping their lattes (half of which are in plastic to go cups but the people are not going anywhere, at least for the duration it takes to finish their drinks). The man’s voice rises in intonation. Everyone removes their earphones. Its seems miraculous, the man speaks again and everyone hears. Yet still, they don’t seem to understand. “Is that anyone’s bike in-front of the tree?” Everyone stares in a caffeinated daze. It is as if the words ‘bike’ and ‘tree’ hold no meaning. Finally, a man with a heavy british accent remembers how he arrived at the coffee shop. Its his bike. The two men and the knife walk out.

This paper is for my philosophy of science class. Writing it makes me wonder how experimental science arrived in the minds of people such as yourself. Stop reading for a moment and ask yourself. Its not a rhetorical question, its an experiment. Perhaps your confused, you thought you were reading a philosophy paper. You were told philosophical papers were not suppose to ask questions, they were suppose to provide analytical responses. Perhaps your even the professor who proposed such an idea to a class of eager (or not so eager) students. Or maybe your just an ant, or a butterfly, or a bowl of rice. But either way you are reading a philosophy paper, its just not in the format you were taught it should be in. It states things that you were probably taught are a waste of time. An old women once said. “Don’t worry so much about ‘suppose to,’” that was good advice.

It just so happens that I personally wondered about the above question to the point my head hurt. So, I opened up a few books to get some ideas about the emergence of experimental science. Well, it seems experimental science can trace its roots to the seventeenth century. Francis Bacon challenged traditional ways of knowing with scientific inquiry. Galileo furthered this tradition with the rejection of Aristotelian science, the application of mathematics to the real world, and the use of experiments to prove observable phenomenon. He is probably most famous for being prosecuted on the basis of embracing the Copernicus heresy. That means they wanted to kill him because he thought the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. Newton got hit in the head with an apple (but no one blamed the tree) and advanced empirical science and the idea of scientific truth. Through natural observation of falling objets (i.e.. apples) he established the law of gravity. Einstein was a really horrible student when he was young. But he was actually a genius, he just thought differently than the way everyone wanted him to in school. What he really craved was a unified theory that would explain everything (imagine scary mad scientist laugh), but that didn’t happen in his life time. However, he did think of a pretty neat idea called the special theory of relativity. Basically, the theory is about the relationship between space and time and how this effects all phenomenon. You see, what Einstein found out was that at faster speeds things age slower, light travels at a fix speed, and nothing can go faster than the speed of light without going back in time. The theory has a lot more to it, but as stated above this is philosophy paper. So for a much better description I highly encourage further reading. If Special relativity was not crazy enough, let me tell you about quantum mechanics. Apparently if you walk into a wall enough times you will find yourself on the other side. This is totally not bogus information and should not be attributed to my insanely unacademic writing, but rather to actual experimental science. Its really only observable on the atomic and subatomic level though and not on the paper in you hands or projected on your screen. The idea is that these little things called waves have packets of energy and behave like particles. So it is as if the tide drank an energy drink and became a bouncy ball, but never lost its wave characteristics. Anyways, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics don’t mix. They totally conflict, which leaves scientist scratching their heads and wondering about the same question I asked you to think about earlier. Who knows maybe you will live Einstein's dream and find a universal theory to explain everything. But its a lot more likely that you will stare out your bedroom, office, or classroom window and wonder why you bothered reading this nonsensical paper.

Outside the large window facing King St. a man prunes a tree. Or perhaps its a large bush. Whatever it is, it has branches. A pattern of the branches fall on the concrete. A student looks up from her sprawling notes to watch the phenomenon. The man works quickly, cutting with precision and a kind of aesthetic intensity. He is clearly absorbed in his work. Or perhaps this is just pleasure. The girl closes her textbooks, throws away her cup, and walks out smiling. The man looks into the coffee shop window (it seems wider than the first time he looked inside), he runs his finger along the blade of his knife and walks away smiling.

The mechanistic world view reduced life to a machine. Descartes compared life to a finely functioning clock. Just as clocks have intricate gears and pulleys, the world has atoms and particles. Now, you might say clocks are really incredible and that you wouldn’t mind being called a clock. But comparing the world to a clock, as incredible as they be, has had devastating implications for the way we view life. The metaphor of the clock suggest that the world is not alive, its just a machine. If a clock isn’t working it can be ‘fixed.’ Thus, with the mechanical view the world became something that just needed to be ‘fixed,’ or dominated. You might say don’t we want to ‘fix’ the earth? Don’t we want to end drought, elevate hunger, end wars? Well, if you believe that the earth is a living system, you might say that you wish the earth could be ‘healed,’ you might even wish that we could be healed.

The man with the knife returns. The image of a swinging blade, leaves, and sky blur together clouding the view of King St. and the eyes of a few coffee whores. For an epoch of time all they have drank is coffee and ideas. But now they are confronted with actual ‘bikes’ an ‘trees.’ Not the words, but the sensual objects they describe. A doctor told the boy at the counter that his stomach lining has become inflamed from drinking too much coffee. “I thought he was only going to take off a few branches.” “Me too, why do you think he is cutting it?” “I don’t know, I don’t know...” Every part of the tree categorizable green lies moaning on the streets reflected in pupils dilated by stress and sleep depravation. The doctor who told the boy about his stomach lining does not know if it was a tree or a bush. The boy does not know if it was at all.

While modern science has created many advances it also has limitations. This is because modern science has failed to see the earth as a living system. Modern science may have created medical advances which can extend the life of individuals through advance treatments of such illnesses as heart disease. However it has failed to see the individual’s illness as part of a larger social issue of poor nutrition, or an even larger environmental issue of the impact of agriculture and factories on the earth. What we need is a new perspective of the earth as a living system and a science that observes the interconnectedness of life.

Restless, xe pulls xe knees up to xe chest and put them down again. Xe scribbles a drawing of the the branches falling on the concrete, but the branches are arms, and the arms are Celtic knots. xe opens a book, reads a quote from King Lear, “Thy life’s a miracle. Speak Yet Again,” and closes it. Books talk but they don’t communicate and xe is tired of conversations with xeself. Outside xe watches the sky change colors, xe is overwhelmed with the knowledge that the earth is moving. Is the sky really changing colors, or is xe perception changing (or is the world’s perception changing? Xe hopes so...). Suddenly xe has the urge to look left. There is a row of stumps. They were never really trees or bushes. Xe is not really a girl or a boy. They just were. xe just is. And no one really understands color.

There are new directions in science combining quantitative and qualitative knowledge. There are in fact so many that it would be exhaustive to list all of them. A few of the most known are Holism, Systems thinking, and Gaia Theory. The scientific method I would like to focus on is Gothean science because it is not only a theory but a whole new approach to viewing natural phenomenon. Actually, it can be thought of as the phenomenology of science.

Goethe lived during the romantic period and was largely known for his work as an author until recently. Goethe, personally always believed it was his work as a scientist that he would be remembered for. It differs considerably from other forms of phenomenology in that it relies on actual observation of the natural world, where typically phenomenology focuses on the mind. Goethe practiced what he called gentle empiricism through the observation of pure phenomenon. Instead of observing individual parts of an organism as is done in the traditional empirical approach, he observed the organism in connection to its environment. Through the observations of an organism’s change in form over time he coined the term morphology. With the view that nature is a living thing he studied plants, color, and biology. Many contemporary scientist in fields as diverse as botany and optics, as well as many artist and designers, have embraced the phenomenology of science in favor of a sterile mechanical world view.

At the table where I sit in a totally not ergonomic chair, I drink from a bright red ceramic latte cup and boast to note paper about my minds cartographic abilities. The pages of Life Is A Miracle by Wendell Berry and Goethe’s Way of Science edited by David Seamon and Arthur Zajonc are open and marked. I stare at a few leaves I collected from the tree, or the shrub, or whatever it was that man cut down--pushing all us coffee whores into vertigo, causing us to reorient ourselves in relation to our coffee shop with a large window (now a window with a much wider view of King St. than it had when the man with a knife first looked inside.) As I stare at the leaves twirling between my fingers I think maybe I am just staring at a reoccurring pattern. Leaves are a lot like fingers. If I loose a finger am I still me? if a plant looses its leaves it it still it? If I loose my fingers, leaves, limbs, branches, heart, trunk, veins, roots--The branches are limbs, and the limbs are celtic knots, and celtic knots are patterns. At what point does the pattern become something different? The books were never opened, the note paper is blank, the red cup has water in it, and I am not sitting. I’m walking with xe and the boy and the girl and the man with knife and we are all talking with the tree about life. But we never meet.

Everything is interconnected, even if we don’t notice it immediately. Everyone is connected to everyone, although we may have no apparent social ties. Everything we do from throwing away a coffee cup, to conducting a genetic experiment, to cutting down a tree has an effect. Not only does embracing an organic world view give us happy warm hippy feelings about ‘mother nature’ it forces us to think about how the mechanical world view has ethically and emotionally separated us from ourselves and our environments. Philosophy of science can particularly help scientist develop a participatory relationship with nature in which they become ethically responsible for their work. Perhaps a new organic direction in science will even create a paradigm shift in thought, a revolution of absolute adoration for everything.

Binge

The fighter planes fly overhead, their sound is violent--an arial show, entertainment. But actual bombs are dropping and a mother is scared to go to the grocery store everyday for the last twenty years. Sunday, my great grandmother died. Many people never meet their great grandmother, even in heaven--she will wear a purple housecoat and I will forever serve her four year old burnt toast in my memory of the oldest daughter of twelve. Children die of hunger now and now and now... I lay out poison for ants and cry at the calamity. The planes rip through my eardrums, the closet doors rattle, and I feel afraid like the time I was small and I hung myself inside a party dress as if I were flat--I became a ghost at the sound of my stepfather’s truck coming up the driveway. They will fight again, dishes will fly. Than my mom and I will go to the grocery store, buy cheese, bread, and grapes to stuff into our hearts ripped open by those white planes, those white dishes... Even now, the throttle echoes in my belly and I feel afraid that even in ninety years I will never understand death. So I go to the grocery store, I buy a loaf of bread, and while watching the clouds shift I consume its entirety, so that I can feel alive.

Ruined map. Koi fish glow in the dark. Reflected light from the trees, glistening. Eccentric man, playful beast... A beam of light and we are walking, fighting, resiting, the dance that we mimick. In the darkness we dance, and talk of HIjikata. But...I sense there is a more 'authentic movement' within you. Let is out. Scream, laugh, cry, be vulnerable. You are the lonely bursting balloon. Children skip, run, play, you fly away. The air inside us is limitless, but this body is caught up in a temporal progression. One day pig guts will cover us, our insides will shrivel up--A heart ripped out of a breathing body still beats. What have we given the world? Oh! Earth Mother, goddess of my footsteps, let me fall into your freshley plowed fields, cover my orfices with soil, let me taste the fertile medium that cultivates life.

philosophy paper...

Perception in Art
I.
"It's on the strength of observation and reflection that one finds a way. So we must dig and delve unceasingly." -Monet
In his book Action in Perception on a section about art Noe say’s “To discover appearances is not to turn one’s gaze inward, as it were, to sensation and subjectivity. Rather it is to turn one’s gaze outward...(Noe p179)” When first reading the above words I felt Noe was extremely cold and mechanical in his view of perception in art. I interpreted his words to mean that he wished to do away with introspection in image making all together. Feeling that introspection is a vital aspect of art, I questioned whether Noe had ever even held a paintbrush or felt compelled to paint something, and whether he understood the process of making art at all. However, a more careful reading of his text led me to feel that he did not wish to, ‘do away with introspection in image making all together,’ as I had so violently feared, but rather that he was suggesting a different kind of introspection, something I had already known very well, but had no words for. It is something I have come to call ‘eyes open’ introspection. That is what this paper is about, the ability, through interaction with our environment, to gaze upon the world, “in a very special way (Noe p179).”
When a painter approaches a canvas (or whatever other surface they are creating an image on) no matter how abstract, vague, or imaginary the image they are about to create may be, there is a special relationship that forms between the artist, their environment, and their tools. It is within the evolution of this relationship that the artist is able to bring out the images they have inside themselves. This is ‘eyes open’ introspection. It is a kind of pulling out, of abstracting the essence of what you feel and mixing up with pigments, brushes, and light.
‘Eyes open’ introspection is not simply self-reflection of ones own isolated mental and emotional processes. It is the realization that ones own mental and emotional processes cannot be observed in isolation because they do not exist in isolation. Painting is an acknowledgment of this. People often say that they, ‘need an emotional outlet,’ by pushing emotions with a paintbrush, an artist is working through a mental and emotional process within relationship to their environment and its affordances. Introspection is utterly and completely dependent on our interaction with a dynamic world. Introspection is not limited to a relationship with the world as it is, it also allows for a kind of creativity that gives us the ability transform our environment, and that allows it to transform us.

II
“All bodies are in perpetual motion, like a river”
-Liebniz

In section 3.7 Noe discusses the “touch-like character of seeing”. He agrees with Berkeley that touch is the only spatial sense, but unlike Berkeley he does not limit touch-like characteristics to the perception of space, but rather says that all vision is touch-like. Both Berkeley and Noe tried to explain perception through the sense of touch. But I would like to espouse that perception is not simply touch-like but that it is dependent on a dynamic relationship with the world. Above all it is dependent on our capacity to be moved.
Berkeley says that the content of space is grasped through movement or interaction with the environment. Although we cannot literally ‘touch the vanishing point’ any more than we can ‘touch the end of a rainbow,’ we can perceive that one point is farther than the other through moving in relation to that point. Gibson, “analyzes touch in a new way by describing touch not in terms of of an experimenter’s push on the skin, but in terms of an observer who actively explores the surfaces of objects...(Goldstein pg.193)” This kind of active exploration and movement is very important to life artist. For example an artist will often hold up a pencil, a straightedge, or the edges of their palms in order to measure the proportions of an object in the distance. From this activity of moving one’s body in relation to a point, tilting the head, squinting the eye, moving to and fro, an artist is able to make sense of spatial relationships.
Berkeley uses the example of measuring your distance from an object in relation to how many steps it would take you to get to it. Similarly, in life drawing we check the proportions of the body in relationship to the size of the head. The average body for life drawing is about eight heads, and the average body for fashion illustration is nine heads. These measurements serve as an indicator of what we will accept as an average or beautiful body.
It is interesting that before even sighting the ‘true’ proportions of our figure models we already have some conceptual idea of how she or he should look. So our interaction with the space, the model (our object of perception,) our tools, and ourselves are as much dependent on our ability to see correctly what is out there as it is to our ability to see what we have been taught to see (the concept of perfect proportions.)
Berkeley makes an interesting analysis of vision. He says that vision alone cannot tell us anything about space. There are many optical illusions in which the convex and concave aspect of an image cannot be distinguished, for example. Berkeley suggest that it is only through tangible significance that we can learn to interpret the spatial information presented in vision. He thinks we are only able to understand the shape, size, and depth of objects in a picture through the understanding we have acquired through tangible experience. Thus, as we will discuss in more detail later in this section, viewing a picture draws on the same skills as viewing the depicted scene.
I agree with Berkeley that touch is a kind of movement. This idea of movement is what I consider to be the most essential aspect of the enactive theory of perception. The puffy white clouds hanging low in the back of the valley at dawn do not literally settle into my skin, creating the sensation of goose-bumps. Rather, I feel this sensation arises from my dynamic relationship with my environment. It is my ability to move within relationship to my environment, to actually become a part of it, ‘becoming one with the space,’ that allows me to ‘dance with the clouds,’ as it were. My ability to perceive the clouds is a result of this dance created between myself and the object of perception, everyone no matter how clumsy, as perceivers take part in this dance. It is our capacity to move and to be moved that allows for perception.
It is this same capacity to be moved that allows for creativity in art. Although a painting is static, the most profound paintings create a stirring of emotions and physical reactions within the perceiver. My mom use to say that my paintings made her feel sick when she looked at them because they were just too close to what she was actually feeling. As Noe says, “Pictures are a very simple (in some senses of simple) virtual space. What the picture and the depicted scene have in common is that they prompt us to draw on a common class of sensorimotor skills.” The way that picture is different from the depicted scene, and from reality in general, is that they contain element of transcendence. The same sensorimotor skills we use to navigate our immediate space can be used to take us to another realm, one of imagination, chimeras, and dare I say, dreams. This element of transcendence is the result of the kind of ‘eyes open’ introspection we spoke of earlier.
I would argue that the visual world is not, “given all at once, as in a picture (Noe pg.99)” This statement is based on the assumption that pictures are given all at once, when in-fact they are not. Just as touch requires serial contact, I feel understanding a painting also requires temporal progression. Similar to the way paint is literally layered onto the surface the artist chooses, the perceivers experience of a painting, of a ‘virtual space,’ becomes more complex as they interact with it, creating layers of transcendence. This is why art critics can spend a lifetime analyzing a single painting, or those who simply appreciate art can have a new sensation each time they gaze upon a familiar painting. Interaction with the visual world is not static, paintings are windows into the dynamic world. As Noe says, perception is diaphanous.
Stimuli are produced and perceived within us as a result of our relation to our environment. Tactile perception does not mean we have to physically touch the object to experience it. Rather, it suggest that there is a dynamic relationship between the perceiver and the world. It does not suggest that other senses are subservient, but rather suggest that all senses are tactile-like. This means that all perception require us to dance, it does not allow us to be wallflowers, to stand motionless at the edge of experience. movement is the criterion for existence.

III.
Art is exploring fundamentally new modes of perception, through the senses, and new forms of imagination.
-Bohm
It seems to me that artist can to some extent explore different forms of sense perception and the meaning of perception.
-Bohm

The transition from the traditional snap-shot view of perception to the enactive view of perception is parallel to our advancement in the understanding of the mind through neuroscience.
This transition is also reflected in art history, from representational art which focuses on appearances to schematic art which focuses on the act of visual perception. It is exciting to think that from the spheres of philosophy, science, and art there is a co-progression that suggest that this world is more dynamic than we think.
The enactive theorist argued that representational pictures are just partial environments that contain static elements. They further said that representational pictures do not reflect how the brain works. While I would agree with the enactive theorist that the aim of representational art, at least intentionally, was not to translate the phenomenal perceptual experience, I would disagree that they do not reflect how the brain works, or at least reflect our understanding of how the brain works. In-fact, there seems to be a remarkable co-evolution of our understanding of art and our understanding of the mind.
The paradox of representational art is that it aims to capture objects as they are by depicting how they look. Representational art suggested that the brain creates a representational picture of the scene in the same way a representational painting does. From our previous comparatively limited understanding of the mind, this idea was not far off. It was previously thought that the visual world was impressed on our retina like a stamp. It was than translated by the seeing visual cortex. This led artist to believe that hey could passively observe an object or scene, thus rendering a more realistic picture. While some artist may believe they paint with an ‘innocent eye,’ and while they may dream to become ever more innocent, our continual development in the understanding of the mind would suggest that this is not possible (Zeki.)
The first part of the brain that was discovered to be related to vision was the visuo-cortex. It was also thought for every point in the retina there were related points in the visuo-cortex, supporting the idea that images were ‘impressed’ on the mind. The naive idea that this was the sole location of visual activity in the brain led scientist to believe that there snap shot view of perception was correct, that images seen on the retina were simply translated by this region of the brain. This made it very easy for people to think that they see with the visuo-cortex and the rest of the brain functions in understanding what is seen. That seeing is passive and understanding is active. However, in the past seventy years there has been remarkable research into the way vision works and neuroscientist are constantly discovery how different areas of the brain function. For example they have discovered separate regions of the brain responsible for the detection of color, face and object recognition, motion, and so forth. It is not simply the visuo-cortex that is responsible for seeing (Zeki.) Just as perception requires a dynamic relationship with our environment, our own brains mimic this dynamic relationship. Seeing is an activity that occurs as much between the different regions of our brain and the entire visual system, as it does between our body and the world.
Representational art tried to look at the world through an ‘innocent eye.’ It tried to separate seeing and knowing. It thought that seeing was an objective process and that knowing was a reflective experience. But as alluded above, this was a contradiction. While Berkeley had many novel ideas about tactile perception he was wrong in saying that we construct the world, that vision is only a sensation of color in our retina.
We now have a more broad understanding of the entire visual system. Vision is not a mere sensation of color on the retina. Rather our eyes are connected to many different areas of the brain, each with there own task. No where is this more evident in visual art than in Experiential, or schematic art, which aims to capture the potential for movement. Like phenomenology it looks at perception as an experience. For example, Picasso aimed to invite the viewer to imagine what we would see if we saw a woman seeing herself in a mirror. This scenario invites the viewer into the virtual space, it motions them into the act of “visually perceiving an act of visual perception (Chakrabarti.)”
I feel that the work of philosophers, scientist, and artist is intrinsically connected and that we can benefit from the appreciation of each others effort to understand the world. The progression towards an enactive approach suggest that action is necessary for existence. It further suggest a co-dependence with each other and with the earth. To me this is really important, because it give grounds to advocate understanding and compassion.
Experience is a thoughtful activity. If we were more sensitive to what Gibson referred to as ‘affordances,’ we could not only improve upon our sensorimotor skills (which helped Gibson teach pilots to improve on their flight skills) but we could be more sensitive to affordances in people and in the environment. In the same way affordances tell us that something is ‘sit-on-able’ or ‘climb-able’ we could recognize the emotional affordances in each other. If we did away with the passive view that we are just going through this world all unaffected, disconnected, and void, and we embraced the understanding that we are dynamic beings, that we have the capacity to move and to be moved, I feel that people would be compelled towards thoughtful action.

reflective emotion and nonsense writing

With every kiss and every hug hello my memory traces your lips against my own. A caffeine stained theobromine deficient stare possesses me. “I like you,” the oversized ruby midnight colored latte cup does not respond to the words whispered through my lips, lingering on its edge. And I am on edge, so nervous the cup clattles against its saucer when I set it back down.

You set your things at a table away from mine and attempt to plug your laptop into the electrical outlet. Sparks fly, but they are not between us. They’re under the table where you crawl. Between your computer and the electrical wire. But your fine. I know, because I asked. Yes, I saw it too. Actually, I felt it. Like the time you held my hand up to your mouth and kissed each of my fingers. But you don’t catch my innuendo. You just make some reference to dogs, or tigers, or some other wild beast that spends their time prowling amongst the legs of young women crossed beneath coffee tables. And I just giggle shyly at the the sight of your hands molded into claws and your grin into fangs.

Ok. So there are no young women sitting next to your table. But it sounded racey, didn’t it? “...the legs of young women crossed beneath tables?” I mean after all, what are they trying to hide between those crossed legs, looking all sassy like that. We know what they got between them. Victoria’s ‘secret’ my... While driving you rambled like a little toy boom box about ‘the return to the vulva’ in an Argentinean gypsy woman’s--no, I mean a little french circus man’s accent.

But now, wordsmith, you seem to have silenced your rhymes to me. I watch you confining them to some mute corner of your hard drive--your lips pierced, your brow pensive, and your fingers pecking at the keyboard. I remember the time I didn’t hear you recite, the time I didn’t hear you make poetry into the mic open, vibrating your sound into the eager ears of self proclaimed hippies and hipsters. Yes, we all felt... the love.

The only scene I see takes place in the soil opened up beneath my sickle where worms wring their bodies in a wild dance beneath baby birds whose mamas slice the worm’s bodies into re-growth. The prefix “re,” to turn around, to come back again, to return to poetry, to the gypsy woman, to our beastial nature where seratonin levels rise at a single glance-- of you.