I liked back in those simple days during which I would use cursive lettering and dream about the big dogs that sometimes I thought were following me around. I lived in a time warp of sorts. Nothing I could ever get back.

But during those simpler times, going to the park was easier, as was doing nothing at all. I didn’t dare to synthesize and creative information 24/7/365 days per year. And for that I have modern education to blame.

I didn’t first become a proponent of abolishing what most would consider a sacred institution until I heard of a story that felt near to my heart.

There was once a boy named Phillip. I loved old Phil — he was a classmate’s dream. Except for the fact that he was not my classmate yet was an acquaintance, no less. We won’t go any further on that subject of whether he was an acquaintance or not, but suffice it to say that Phil was my friend.

Phil was diminutive when everyone else stood tall, meager and shy when everyone stood proud, cunning when everyone else played dumb, and most of all, he was a musician — a really good one at that.

Phil played the guitar like everyone else played checkers and chess — like a little genius, and yes, everyone was “stuck” watching his “creative development,” though nobody knew so. Not even “Smarty” Steven, who had no musical bone in his body, could comprehend what was going on with Phil.

There was once a time in which Phil was being a nuisance to the class; the teacher punished him; saying, “Just play more guitar, and for Heaven’s Sake, play it outside of the earshot of the rest of the student body, because they listen with utter reverence to you and not to me. But never mind all that; just stop.”

And the teacher, having learned something new about Phil and about himself, secretly (or only away from the students) sought to better understand himself (and Phil). So he took a long, long walk and thought until he nearly dropped dead in fatigue. But he had reached a new insight: that which was the following, and while it was rather unorthodox, it was also quite enthralling as an idea and the teacher could not wait to put it into practice. He would have individual sessions with Phil. He resolved to bring the matter up to the head principal the next day. But in his avarice and out of the fact that he just plain stinking had no extra time, the teacher did not talk to the principal. And whether it was out of sheepishness or a genuine time-crunch, we will never know, as that teacher never so much as broached the subject with the principal. Instead — he banished it so far away in his own mind that he thought that he, not Phil; was living on another planet. And because of this and poor timing, this teacher found himself in a bind. Should he confess his sins (and also Phil’s genius) or should he forever keep his peace (as they sometimes like to say in folklore)?

The teacher decided that neither way was the best option, and conceded to Phil most of the time except once, when he saw that Phil was visibly upset by a remark that the teacher himself had made.

“Sometimes, the best thing to do is give up if you’re handed a tough problem,” the teacher had said.

The teacher later reprimanded himself so harshly for this comment (for reasons we will likely never understand). The teacher did decide; however, to make some conciliatory remarks to Phil.

“Phil, we all make mistakes, and I made one the other day,” he said.

There was nothing glaringly wrong with the teacher’s statement, except the fact that he said it to Phil in (relative) privacy, or as much as the school might allow. That was why the theory behind modern schools was primarily based on a mistaken assumption that most students have a desire to learn. No, I daresay that nearly all students like learning. But what do I know, pray tell? I am just one of the teachers who forms a part of a coalition that calls itself collectively as “Education Proper.”

Some words I dreamt of:

What is the meaning of this?

And when I’m 80 years old, will I regret not writing that novel?

Probably not.

Blogs put immense pressure on individuals: to create; to produce, etc.

I thought the institution of “Creative Writing” was going to take away my liberty.

And that’s because it did, to some extent.

People don’t have much liberty today to create what they want. It has to conform to the standards of the society in which it is produced, the art, that is.

Philosophy is hard, rigorous, and sometimes completely erroneous. I am talking of its physical qualities. Or as if it were personified.

I never edit anything.

That is, unless it’s a project for money.

And this project is clearly not for money. It’s a blog.

Blogs should not be for money. Or else you will probably go broke.

And for whoever tells me: “blogs can incentivize your business, etc.”, I will respond later sometime.

I don’t have a business.

Something Jeff Bezos said:

Not a direct quote.

But he said that what made him want to create Amazon was that he thought when he was 80 years old, would he regret not having made the decision to start the business we now know to be so successful? And the answer was, yes, he would regret not having made the decision. And he said that then, not now. So he in fact was using a cool form of psychology. I was alluding to it in the beginning of this post. It’s to imagine what you will think when you’re super old. Imagine what decisions you’ve made and whether you would regret any decisions. And what you’d regret. Would there be any decisions you’re about to make that you would or would not regret? Why?

Thus, this was the catalyst for me to start writing some stuff.

I don’t think that I would regret not having written a novel by the time I’m thirty. But I would regret not having tried. So I will try. I will.

What I have heard from other writers is that there’s no model for success as a novelist. So you have to carve it out yourself. Which makes things extremely difficult.

But I don’t really care much about what other writers have to say.

I mean, history produced a lot of self-centered writers.

Not that history produced them itself. But you know what I mean.

Some people have read my blog before.

Some people have thrown up their arms in outrage.

They’ve said: “what is this blasphemy?”

I believe what I say is at least somewhat true.

And so, isn’t that all that really matters?

I don’t mean to endorse nihilism here. But that’s where I think there is too much skepticism.

If people think that nothing is worth it, then why not believe them?

Come up with an answer. I challenge you.

Coffee is the fuel by which I start my day

It’s about 6:23 in the morning here

Sometimes creativity starts in a funny way

That much is true.

You don’t always express what you need to

Say.

I know epic poems usually have a different structure

But I decided to format it this way,

As I am not Homer

nor am I anyone else of his vintage.

They say sometimes that ethanol is the same thing as gasoline

Or the same chemical rather —

I think what they fail to note is that —

Ethyl alcohol is not a stimulant —

Though in no way

Should gasoline be drunk

We don’t need to test out its properties —

For I believe the scientists.

Or practitioners.

Whichever you choose to subscribe to

Creativity starts easily

Ends hard

Free verse is the best

Not sure why — just

Get the sense that it is.

No real sentiments

No poetry

No fiction.

I am a self-appointed expert on meditation.

My credentials: I’ve done meditation for over five years now.

This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m qualified to teach meditation, per se, but I do know a lot about it.

I do think that meditation is commonly misunderstood.

Some people say you cannot meditate “incorrectly.” This is true in certain ways, but in some important ways, this statement differs from the truth.

To meditate, you need to have the right intention. That is — why are you meditating?

There are many other “rules” to meditating correctly.

But the intention is a very important one. And that is the only one I will share today.

So, why are you meditating?

I can tell you, from personal experience, that meditation does not change everything immediately. It causes a gradual shift, though, in perception of the world and is incredibly worthwhile.

*I am not an expert on meditation.

Steely Dan has some interesting lyrics.

Like, “Hollywood — I know your middle name” — I thought that was a particularly interesting one.

It’s from the song “Glamour Profession” — just so proper credit is given.

What is Hollywood’s middle name?

I found this song and the lyric to be quite telling.

I have never been to Los Angeles, at least, I think I haven’t been there.

Regardless of whether I’ve been there or not, I can imagine what it’s like.

That imagination is like a big version of Denver. Or maybe a bigger version of Boulder. Who knows.

I do know something about Hollywood — having consumed their movies for many years now.

Elliott Smith wrote about LA, too.

I don’t know what Smith nor what the band members of Steely Dan thought of LA. I just have my own perception of it.

Lots of fame there, I’d imagine.

One time I took a metaphysics class in another language.

The language was Spanish; the setting was Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The professor didn’t mess around.

This day I walked into class I was inundated with a plethora of metaphysical topics I hadn’t even thought to consider before.

One metaphysical topic I’d like to write about is how language atomizes knowledge in one’s mind.

I learned metaphysics in Spanish. Thus, the language caused the knowledge to be stored in my mind in a different place than if I had learned these topics in English.

This is my hypothesis.

I think it is so because when I go to talk about the experiences I had in Argentina learning metaphysics in a foreign language, I often cannot recall them in English. I have to translate things in my mind.

Then I will sufficiently be able to explain them, but it takes a little work.

I am wondering what “opposition” means. I am thinking of the situation in Bolivia. People declare that they disapprove of what has occurred, but many will not act on their sentiments, nor will they be able to act appropriately even if they do feel negatively about the events.

Many commentators on this issue are not Bolivian. I am not criticizing those who oppose the situation from somewhere other than Bolivia because I approach the issue with the same distance. Nor am I saying that everyone who comments on a political debacle needs to be from a particular place in which events transpire, nor even that they should be of a particular nationality. The natural response to a crisis is to either oppose it or condone it, though I am more interested in what people’s opposition means.

Senator Bernie Sanders has commented on Bolivia. Surely, people should be permitted to state their views on this, but I wonder what action they can realistically take.

It seems to me like armchair politicians probably should not make blanket statements about Bolivia because doing so would make them hypocrites. It must be said that I am an armchair politician, though I am not trying to generalize; and I hope I am not being hypocritical or contradictory.

Senator Sanders is not an armchair politician. It is worth stating that maybe I am misreading what he says. I believe his general idea is that the “coup” should not have taken place or perhaps that the new government should not have allowed the violence to occur. His position is a logical one, in that it condemns state violence against Bolivians.

Senator Sanders suggests some measures that seem unattainable. I believe he will not win the Democratic nomination, but his ideas may permeate into the mainstream political establishment.

I think, in the U.S., we need to work on how we think of intervention in other countries. The hands-off approach endorsed by President Trump is not working. Evidence for this is that parts of the world are erupting into violence and protests against those in power.

If Barack Obama were still president, I wonder how he might react to the political situation. Obama is politically moderate, even now. But, we don’t need a far-left or a far-right politician in the White House beginning in 2021. We need someone who is willing to change the country, but who also can keep checks and balances in order. Many people thought (including me) that Obama would stay in the political sphere after he left office. However, he has distanced himself from the political spotlight (perhaps wisely).

The Trump administration needs to condemn these worldwide antidemocratic regimes sharply. These governments are inflicting harm on their people.

If you read a newspaper here, you’re liable to realize that there is an economic crisis going on. There are various ways of viewing this.

Meanwhile, I sit in my apartment listening to music with glassy vocals that sound like a wall. I say that because there’s a wall of sound–I believe it’s made of platinum–and it’s shiny. Can sound be shiny?

Apparently so. I also have come to appreciate how listening to music on high volume can assist. It can assist the soul to feel how one ought to feel.

I also realized that my postulations at various times reflected exactly how I was feeling at that moment in time.

Nothing I write is intended to provoke. I’ve realized that, too.

Never to provoke, never to incite, never to rumor. I guess that’s what art is, right?

It’s funny how what we call art has changed.

We call art anything that determines its own meaning. But who knows? Maybe art is something else. Or maybe it will be something else.

I quickly got bored of the reports I used to write here.

They were too formulaic.

The shiny reports I used to write were a reflection of times past.

I am now a more complicated man.

I listen to music with synthesizers in it. I am more complex.

I once promised I would write a blog every day.

Hopefully the day I start doing that, I will not have anything interesting left to say.

Or rather, that might be true. Interesting things are only proportional to the frequency of time you use to separate events.

To be continued.