famecelebrity

i am afraid of famous people. i have almost met chan marshall, thurston moore & kim gordon and will oldham, but i chickened out.i dont get very far off the ground and these people were within an armlength, so i know they must be down to earth types. fame and celebrity are different. fame is a renewable resource. maybe we should say 15 minutes of celebrity, but words is words.i write this from a blade of grass, high above the ground if i was flea-sized: fame is the harvest after turning over the soil within, and blah blah blah... farming analogies i wont attempt...as for celebrity, lewis carroll says that if you dont know where you are going, any road will take you there. 'there' could mean a lot of things.i hear people say they want to be famous, but i dont see them doing anything.i think the number one skill for humans is communitizing, who you surround yourself with. if your friends suck, it is your fault, you want to be poisoned, eat it up and stop complaining.celebrity is a swolen mosquito-ass blood sac. or an accidental blessing?and somewhere in between...fame is a big blue ribbon for exemplory deftness of communitizing. a big blue ribbon is something to keep around, but you cant eat it. maybe you could patch a hole in your pants with it. but it wont sustain you.a big blue ribbon is an object to notice when the nostalgic spirit arises. a celebrity is an object to notice as well, a living allegory.a famous person is a narrator. a constellation is an object. a celebrity is a star. then a famous person is an astronomer. an astronomer spends a lot of time with stars, but from the ground.i write this from a blade of grass, high above the ground if i was flea-sized. i cant relate from experience and i squandered my chances to at qualified counsel.so i am left to ask, why am i afraid of famous people? if i am a flea on a very tall piece of grass, this serves to give me a great deal of perspective on any earthly matter (within range), and of course, an unintelligible cryptic voice with which to say it.what i mean is, a flea knows everything about a very tall piece of grass and a patch of a meadow, but we are talking about famous people and stars in the sky.the world seems to me vast but attainable. it is in many ways a relief being a flea. fleas can leap an incredible distance for their size.but flea living wins no ribbons in the human community. what impresses a flea is trampled by a boot in no time.in dr. suess's 'horton hears a hoo', we have an elephant talking to a spec of dust perched atop a dandelion. the spec of dust is actually a very small (to the elephant) city/world filled with busy people and an astronomer.this might confuse my analogy, if there is one left to confuse, i think it is poetic rubble now.perhaps the famous person is a very big star who is humbled by the infinite universe and the universe is a celebrity not humbled by the omniverse or else we could travel between dimensions, that is make both parts of a decision simultaneously. is that what your problem is pisces?perhaps a universe that humbles itself amongst the omniverse is called god. and god isnt humbled by whatever else is beyond that because we dont have a word for it.i already wrote about the folly of labels so i'll add just a quick addendum: humility is the fuel or the momentum. to lose humility is to falter. intelligence, always in pursuit of humility, overtakes the slow and sets up a camp called knowledge. and from knowledge is born labels. population... ancestory... emotional mass.

nothing really

i think i need to spend more daytime by myself. i think, maybe i dont know how to be around people...
i'm working on a 7 or 8 hour mp3CD to put in my first release on Slobberkiss Intl records. a 12"vinyl called Yoga with Scissors.the mp3CD is all the stuff i worked on in my room when i had no friends, or maybe i should say, when i wasnt seeing much of my friends.going back through this stuff, i feel so prolific!
i dont know how to feel about how much i like being alone working on stuff. i really really like it! maybe i can reevaluate how i feel with people around, but not turn into a monster. i like being alone in a crowd, like friday when i went to parliament funkadelic by myself, but that kind of feeling doesnt work with my daughter. but she is so real. i love just sitting next to her. she doesnt have the adult filters yet. maybe they are called motives.
i dunno, this isnt what i wanted to write about, this isnt really coming together.
i remember one thing i wanted to write about, but i think i'll chicken out. i was going to write about people who dont know what they want, but i wont get any more specific than that.
maybe what is wrong with me is that i always know what i want but i dont ask for it, or i dont ask the right people or i ask the right people but they cant hear or understand me.maybe this is what i need to learn from nina. when she is happy or unhappy, i know it. is it possible to be an adult with a clear head? does sobriety exist?
maybe what is confusing is when someone knows what they want and someone else doesnt know themselves. or when someone wants something from someone else... duh.
i'm bored with potential. but patience is important too. i think i am more of a kinetic person. maybe it is my introversion which makes me kinetic. my horoscope shape says i only achieve my goals with cooperation of others. seems like i have been set up by the stars to have to learn something! oh dastardly thingies!
ok, i'll unchicken out. i only live once, yeah?
boy this place plays shitty 80s music!
uh, what i was going to write was that, as a 29 year old, i detest the terms boyfriend/girlfriend. it seems so casual. this is tied again to my introversion, but i struggle to be casual with people, unless i decide to feel that way ahead of time.when i am attracted to a person, and i dont just mean a pretty girl, i might mean a favorite author or a movie character, i go way overboard. i guess my imagination could use some discipline.i know i could use discipline in lots of areas and maybe that is why i didnt just indulge my hermit when i was 25, when i really wanted to. maybe it was why i mysteriously didnt get that job at u of l when i was 24. maybe i would have disappeared into my self. that is no way to be a human.
but casual and safe doesnt work for me either.
i remember what i wanted to write about. i think i am the most creative person i know. i'm not sure, but i think it might be true. maybe dane is more creative than me. i dont mean to sound vain, i dont mean that i am the most talented person alive, i just mean that i place creativity higher on my list of priorities than anyone i know. i put art-making above comfort and security. i put nina at the same level as creativity, because in my mind, if i cannot tell her how i feel, i can only tell her how i want her to feel about me. which would be total bullshit! plus, if i am balancing my self and my fatherly self, i can grow with her. i hope i can keep up. i hope i can see her as a human when she is a teenager and forgetting how, or something like that.
i refuse to be 30 and have a 'girlfriend', i think i am only going to get more intense. the path towards self-love gets narrow, too narrow for casual people and motives.
when i was 25 i knew self-love and had myself as a witness. now when i find it again, i will have nina as a witness, plus whoever wants to be there with me.that is kind of like growth or i dont know what exactly. analogous to this life, leaving home to go to work, coming back home. leaving again the next day, getting paid, coming home. this is just work, life is work and play is timeless.

kiss yourself

sci fi

1 car for every 15 people should be enough. roomier but less gassy? slower? who's in a hurry?communism could work fine for groups of up to one hundred, but maybe we could work on a system of 'porous' class for thousands and millions. we dont need a middle class, in fact, maybe it is the middle class whose buffer is what blinds us, isolates us. i imagine a system in which big thinkers have all the resouces and small thinkers use all the resources.who is a big thinker? a big thinker is someone who can step outside of their shell, abandon their personal belief and habits, discard their security blanket and consider another human being's frailty. the more compassion, the more vision one has, the more money/resource they are given access to for sharing. ideally, everyone could make their own way, decide what they need for themself and how much, but in a world of one thousand, one million, one billion, perhaps this is too much to expect.a self-server can sustain themselves. why shouldnt a public servant have enough to go around?this seems to be exactly what we do have, or are moving toward, the elimination of the middle class, the middle class demoting to lower class, a two class state. but the key difference is that a public servant is a public person. there are no mansions for a family of three. a mansion with 120 rooms would house at least one hundred people. maybe the 'owner' has the best room, but there are no fences. there are no exclusive clubs, there are no ghettoes for the poor and real estate for the rich.a rich person has the understanding that they are a public servant. and someone who has no desire or concept to serve is alotted very little resource. the rich servant is given a meal too plentiful for themselves alone, the most selfish are merely given seeds to plant, baby animals to raise. this sounds impossible, but i think it would be easy to switch to this system if one compassionate person were given a voice.the change must happen at the very top, people you have not met, systems you were not aware of volunteer to expire. someone breathes love into the globe and it spreads like beautiful crystals.the change must simultaneously happen at the bottom. the most selfish people realize they have very little to offer the world, very little to give, and they should have in equal proportion to what they give.the change also happens in the middle, people accepting their own unique place in a world of over a billion unique people. decide how many of 7 or 8 billion unique things they can accomodate and then demand that their lifestyle reflect that value.things are not like this.there is not enough energy at the top to overcome human doubt. is this what seperates man from beast? the notion of doubt? or the notion of notion? with allignment of energy, efficient use of human energy, doubt could be propellant rather than imprisoning. to accept doubt into a series of harmonious days, aka a human life, is the blurry line between impossible and commonplace.for one person to agree with themself creates enough energy for at least two people to share. for two people to agree, even to agree to disagree, creates enough energy for four or more people to share. so, perhaps i propose a world full of communist batteries which power the spiritual machine of humanity. the communists have all the wealth to share amongst themselves and too much to keep much of. it is dangerous to keep, it is suffocating to keep too much.so, the key to getting rich, acquiring wealth is to find 100 people to agree with.again, this mirrors the 'real' world, but like a mirror, things are identical but reversed. in this scenario, the wealthy must share with people who cant agree with them in order to survive.somehow this fuels the unique-ness which is already self-evident.the uniqu-ness becomes easier to understand, disagreements become easier to swallow, men and women become more like humans and humans. human becomes a pleasant word again, as in, squirrels trust us again etc...the more people can accept one another, the closer together they can live, so we stop gobbling up the surface of the planet with suburbs.should we give selfish people seeds and call them farmers? this is a risky move, but trust is the catalyst here. the transformation of seeds to crops/food=the transformation of personal habits/self-knowledge to observation of earth habits/ green thumb? i hope so
for a city of one million, there are 100 communists agreeing or agreeing to disagree for their sustenance. there is not a mayor, there are 100 mayors and they live in the 120 room house and anyone can hang out there. the mayors' ears are always open.there are buses for travel or taxis with global positioning system that can find your cell phone and of course, taxis are much cheaper. trucks and cars can be rented, but it is cheaper to call taxis or ride the bus.
the physical world will change itself whether we like it or not. the mental world is not concrete. it is our spiritual world that is poisoned. it is not enough to change one's mind. it is not even necesarry. perhaps it is not even possible to change one's mind since it was not ever truly fixed in one state. but a heart puts down roots. it is not the fault of the heart if the ground is or becomes unhealthy, but it necesary to leave ruined ground behind.

i think peace on earth is inevitable, just like war on earth was inevitable, but how it is achieved... i think it would be simultaneously dubious and pure. one camp of dubious people with peaceful intentions, and peace would get a bad name, like jesus has got a bad rap these days, because it has been spun until the begining phrase and the end phrase are both wrapped up deep inside, and of course the wrapping paper on the outside is crazy ass tv christians and hell and heaven and tithes and you know the rest. i guess that what i mean is that there will be people who get it, a lot of people who dont, and among those who get it, some will be dubious, and some wont.what i mean to say is that peace on earth wont be nirvana, it will simply be a period on earth when war is unprofitable. or, rather, peace is much more profitable. and yeah, drugs and technology would really help.
of course, there are always people who are peaceful, whether it is trendy or not. and there are people who are beligerent, even if evveryone thinks they are an asshole and they cant even get laid. beligerent is as beligerent does, vice versa.
as for a nirvana/valhalla/heaven/what-have-you on earth, in which everyone gets it, or there is no longer anything to 'get' or lack, i guess that would be a quantum leap (if i am using the word correctly) and it could happen at anytime for any reason or for no reason and i dont think this is a god matter at all, i think this is a matter matter, if it is possible, then it is essentially alive and playing by its own rules, its own free will, it has to want to leap, and then do it. what ever i mean by it, or what ever i mean by we. i dont think any terms i can apply to what ever it is i am trying to say would apply to such a novel experience. but i can throw some potential bullshit at you! basically, the other day, i figured out what born again means, it is not a baptism, it is not a promise to the preacher, it is not even a promise to the self, it is not a promise at all. it is not a commitment to any matter. born again is a state in which it is impossible to make action outside the... flow? the realm of love, love being the interconnectivity of anything and everything and nothing as well. which is impossible to ignore, which means that to achieve it, the impossible, hateful living, would feel amazing and 'right' like finishing a marathon or something, perhaps that is why we persist in this tasty lifestyle of earth instead of the tasty lifestyle of heaven. really, i think that the problem is that they are both equally tasty. heaven on earth is not any better than this at all, except that one is not required to learn suffering. i think, if we as humans had not learned suffering, we would not do it everyday. and that is why 'born again' is the term, because children do not want to suffer. babies crying can be translated as "this is wack! my stomach hurts! what is going on?" as people grow up, as they get further from their child state, they get better at suffering. yay them, right? a world full of children would be no better than a world of sufferers and young suffering apprentices, i guess because humans are good at suffering. maybe we forget we are good at not suffering too. we forget how to cry, express, expel, we start to absorb. obviously, this creates an imbalance. maybe this is the need for high volume rock and roll, expel a lot at once, maybe this is why it sounds like crucifixtion, it is so much suffering leaving the body at once...born again, starting a new child state, sort of, basically doing lovely things. basically, not breaking the golden rule. love is leaving the house. anyone can love inanimate walls, because their story is relatively simple to grasp, and one can imagine their purpose is to serve them, shield them, keep them safe, it is thus, easy to love one's own walls, but love... capital L LOVE is what is outside. what does this tree mean to me? what does this pizza delivery guy mean to me? they mean everything to me, and without them, i would not be, and without me, they would not be.
to live in hate, is to take measured calculated steps to ignore or forget this, on purpose, no excuses. to not see oneself in any thing and everything is ignorant.
hateful living, ignorance is not 'bad' it is a skill. it can be elevated to an art. it can be applauded, if one is so inclined. maybe a lovely person would applaud someone's effort to elevate any aspect of themself to art. for one elevating themself, who is a part of me, is them elevating me. or at least a part of me. lastly, the difference between love and almost love is the difference between knowledge and understanding.
knowledge is a fact, is written, is common, is solid. understanding is more like a commitment to study, like a surfer does not own a wave, they own a board on which to enjoy a wave. maybe knowledge is the board and love is the wave. of course a wave happens only once, and its nature is hardly predictable, but we can study waves as a whole, but to predict the nature of one wave rising out of the ocean, the time of its lifespan, its height, etc... would be silly. to predict that waves will probably be happening off the coast of hawaii today would be less silly than that there will be good surfing in the ohio river today, etc...
a lovely person is surfing... right now, always! a lovely person does not want to surf, "like maybe later, after work, but not too late, american idol comes on at 9". a lovely person is wet wet wet, in the water, if you shake their hand, you will have a wet hand. one must make the effort to stay dry, wipe off one's hand.
the surfboard is the self. waves are dangerous, water is dangerous, currents, undercurrents are dangerous. we are not fish or sea turtles or gulls, we are humans, anyone able to read this i mean. thus, we are not able to be as close to the ocean. we have a self, a board as a tool for study. thus, perhaps we are suffering already, without doing it to ourselves. like someone at work with pictures of their children on their desk. while we are alive like this, like surfers and not ocean beings, we are sacrificing our child-person or whatever it is, we are away from our place in the love organism so that we may do work. and apparently, this work is to study love.
and what will we find? and how long will we need to look?
...these bodies are our labcoats and these minds are our surfboards...
when my friend david died, i told myself he was going to look at the map (which is a different lengthy tome of its own), but maybe a better analogy is that he was clocking out and going home for the day.

to tie this up in a nice package, maybe world peace could be like when i worked at wild oats and it was bought by whole foods. everyone was offered a new job, or a severance package. (i took the job but quit soon after.) perhaps, one day we will all be relieved of our duty to study love and offered a new job. perhaps, like my move from one grocery store to another, it will be a similar job.
OOH!! perhaps we are all actually studying HATE! and we will be done soon and asked to study love! ok. but it will be a lot like this, some will elect to do something new. work for their parents company or something...

peace dawgs

where are we?

i can watch youtube now, but tv is more fun. somehow it retains a certain innocence i find lacking from the internet.
ok, tv is as corrupt and manipulative as maybe anything that has ever been, and that is human. but, tv was something utterly new. well, radio was something utterly new and tv was like offspring or spouse. i mean, radio and tv changed the rules of entertainment, shrank the world (metaphysically and physically), etc... radio and tv put the world into a box, allowed for the muscles in the neck to lock into one place*, allowed the muscles in the brain to lock onto one object, sight and stimulation emanate from the single source etc... there were rules and someone is in charge and some people look like tv or some bands sound like radio and somehow everyone knew what was tv-able or not. what i mean is that tv was simple, entertainment, self-contained, self-sufficient...
the internet, i dont know about the internet.
in burroughs' city of the red night, the rule of first city is: everything is true and nothing is permitted. the rule of the last city (there are seven): nothing is true and everything is permitted.
what i dont like about the internet is that it never shuts off. i have an email address, i cant get my own apartment, but i can get a free internet mailing address, lots of 'em. the internet is the new real world. i have to get on the internet to get a job now. i have to get on the internet to see how much money i have. i dont know if i am ready, but of course there is no time for hesitation. i wonder if the internet will ever be taxed, if the availability of addresses and sites and virtual space is finite. is anything infinite? could something become finite or wouldnt it have to have been infinite forever, no beginning no end. something created can be destroyed, and before it is destroyed it can be bought and sold.
did someone create the internet or did we find it flowing like a river under a patch of the tangible world....
this is what makes me hesitate. i guess i dont mind the internet if it is infinite. is life nothing but a quest for entertainment?
i definitely think the internet is a poor substitute for telepathy.
oh wait, as i remember math class, something can start at a point and move on to infinity. but i think it has to move in the opposite direction in equal fashion. is this a parabola?
so, we can create the internet, the infinite; but what we gain in access to information, we lose in ability to ask questions? what we gain in access to collective consciousness, we lose in actual attention spans. what we gain in convenience, we lose in skill. what we gain in communication, we lose in trust. that is the killer to me.
i'm tired of communicating with people who dont trust me.
in summary, this is why i said tv is more innocent, because i can trust it. i can trust it to be corrupt, and deal with that. or i can trust that it just wants to entertain me, and i can turn it off when i want to.maybe the internet is just young, maybe we will settle on rules together or escape from all the rules and expectations, maybe the internet will make more sense in a slightly altered society, one with different goals than what we have now. in that sense, maybe the internet is the altruistic wizard of oz, or worse than caligula. i dunno, it's more aggressive than tv is all i'm sayin.
*i put the asterisk next to the part about neck muscles cuz i forgot how stiff my neck gets when i read a book all night. to that i would say radio and tv was a new literacy and the internet is certainly a new literacy. and i dont just mean peopel who cant spel oR wHo SeEm to LikE caPitLiZinG oNly CerTaiN letTeRs, but that is really important too. the internet is a book writing itself and there seems to be no polite way to decline one's own inclusion.

well, about the virtual life the internet leads, about this virtual camel we have all come to ride or walk alongside of or avoid like the plague, it asks direct questions, it makes direct links. tv is more like detective work, tv is just more work. the internet says things like, "people who bought mc hammer please hammer dont hurt 'em also bought dj jazzy jeff and the fresh prince parents just dont understand" or "other videos containing 'crusty bellybutton sprinkle' are...". maybe the internet knows we are still sucking our thumbs at this point in digital existence, it needs to talk... real... slow. or maybe the internet isnt virtually alive and we are really getting dumb. but i think we are just in an infant stage of some kind.
in many ways, things have sped up from, say 1950 or 1850 or 1750, people on tv say information doubles everyday. but if we are getting dumb, what good is it? if we are actually in an infant stage, as humanity, it would make sense that information would double everyday, just as it does for a child. this is not new information that didnt exist before, this is just a new wrinkle in the brain. everyday, someone learns that 2 is after 1 and h is after g, of course, they have been that way for quite sometime, but it remains mysterious to anyone who has never encountered the alphabet.
people in 1950, 1850, 1750, 1650, 5000bc, i'm pretty sure humans grow at the same rate. i'm pretty sure it has been a while and will be a while yet when a person is full grown at age 7 or not until age 53. i mean 18 year olds have been roughly the same size for hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. i think people have probably even learned new things the same way for this long. only the world has changed. although we have changed the world, humans have changed the world, i feel like the world has changed itself so much more. so much more that our changes are miniscule; maybe, the mass of humanity compared to the mass of the planet. since a time when humans have been similar to one another.

and to that i would say that maybe we are becoming dissimilar to one another, which would mark the beginning of the end of humanity and the transition to something else. but i really dont think we are becoming dissimilar. i think a real artificial telepathy is in utero. one without the advantage of trust, substituting, uh... i dont know what, for trust... money? money is universal, something universal, something completely devoid of coincidence.
i could see the place becoming split between trusters and... and... the faithless (but one doesnt need faith when no room is left for chance). but the thing is, nothing would change, not really, only the faces behind the mask, which arent seen anyway...
whereas now we have some rich people but then we have old money. old money runs the world. rich people aint shit. really! poor people are better off than rich people except that poor people dont love with their hearts, somehow, people have learned to love with their memory, and happiness is one groove of a skipping record.
old money owns record players, old money is the dj. old money is like 10% of the population. old money is the dj, i mean, the dj knows which grooves on the record are happy or sad, the dj knows the record, the dj decides which grooves to play when and why.

in a world of infinite information, artificial telepathy, people who can trust would be like old money. people who retain their ability to make decisions based on their truest self, to trust whatever is left of whatever we started with... are creating the ripples felt by everyone else.
(this is happening now, this is current reality, but all realities occur simultaneously, perceivable to the degree that you invite the distraction.)
the mask is not a disguise old money wears to deceive but the condition of blindness on the part of the viewer, blindness caused by looking with the wrong part of the body, looking with the memory in the past when the face is in the present. like looking at stars that have died a billion years ago whose light is just reaching us (that being said, is it mathematically improbable that we, someone, would see at least one star blink out of the sky in a lifetime?)
a dj is a dj, and a dj spins records. i think i have a different definition of evil than some folks. i think evil is a certain record, i dont think the dj is evil, but the dj knows which record is the evil one, and the dj who plays the evil record wont be at my birthday party. but i might pop in to that club for kicks once. i bet they wear crazy costumes in there! i bet their dances are something else.

as for people becoming dissimilar, humanity moving on, this would happen when people would see with their eyes and not their memory. this would happen when people would remember with their memories and not their eyes. this would happen when everyone is true to themself, they would see that you are not the same as me, but i mean you no harm, i just want to be true to my self, the same as you. in that, we are all moving individually but passing through one another in a way i cant describe. if a carrot and an apple could be put in a blender and turned into one juice, but then seperated back into a whole apple and a whole carrot again...
love is a mingling of ingredients, hate is two items not touching at any point, which i imagine would be a lot of work to achieve, if time and circumstance, cause and effect were seen with the eyes and not with the memory, though the touch would be weak, it would be undeniable and hate would be impossible in that case, although still acheivable with some manipulation to perception. some wipeout of some bridge back to somewhere, a break in the infinity...
love is not good and hate is not bad, love is and so is hate, but love is first and hate is second. love is what is happening until we decide to hate.

in love, humanity would have to reconsider itself...

sharks

plastic people
dont bleed
or sharkcasm
would rip them to bits

colors

in terms of chakras, which i try to think of geographically before hippie-dippishly (burroughs' seven cities of the red night), more like living on the body... red being the broadest, the common, the everyone, the sex organs, maybe california, babies are in control, bodily communion etc... orange is like taboo, jackass, nude not naked, edu-kink-tional, fuckshitdamnbitch, food fight... yellow is like saying No and Me, but it means something for the first time (so, saying no again, establishing No). No power. yellow is opinions, personality palette, new york? or at least new yorker... green is a sensation of proportion or reestablishing postion and destination at once and without even moving a muscle... blue is moving the muscle, and removing the muscle (dropping one's guard)... indigo is pausing to consider progress/ possibilities (the scilla and caribdes?)... purple is tricky, purple is anticipating the feelings one will have upon arriving at one's destination, that is, purple is playing dead. purple is acting like what dead/alive means to an individual. purple is tricky to everyone but the individual and sometimes the individual themself, that they are this way, and not just actors on a stage, as shakespeare might say. purple is the point at which one knows they are acting and can decide which play they want to be in. "nothing is true and everything is permitted."
there should be opposites attracting here... yellow is rejecting, paring down to the bone of the individual while purple is accepting, trying on costume... red is being a baby ("everything is true and nothing is permitted."), green is nurturing a baby (the nature/nurture debate)... orange is breaking the rules and learning from punishment, blue is setting the rules and learning from their effectiveness

i tend to think that anyone can be any age at any time and in any order that they want, if they are aware that they can do it this way, or if circumstances (trauma or 'divine invitations') force them to do it in a non-traditional order, whether they are aware or not. for the most part, age is a good indication of where someone is at. for the average joe and jolene, life goes on. but some people are dawdlers, some are burning up the road. some people split in half and do both at once, which must be exhausting. i think britany spears, what i have read of her anyway, seems to be shirley temple then and elizabeth taylor now slap fighting in a sex shop. (as for me, picture a four year old mozart and any gray old wino that lives under a bridge going to a basketball game together. it is exhausting! ce la vie...)
it would be interesting if people referred to their age by color
but that would be too organic, time is much more consistent for record-keeping, even if it really isnt indicating anything.

living on the body is perpetuating the play, watching/acting. living in the body is like financing the play, renting the theatre, buying the costumes, building the sets, etc... this is a special role to fill, not for everyone. and people usually dont ask questions, unless it is in their script.










(politics is for slaves)