Retread: Conversation with The Poet

An email came to me this morning that reminded me of a conversation I had had several years ago, and posted on an old blog of mine. I’m going to recreate that here for you, because it was an interesting night. The conversation was composed on one of those pads servers at restaurants carry around.

The Poet’s words are in bold; mine are in italics.

What/and how macchiato?

espresso, dollop of foam.

Why/and how don’t these barristas know this —? Cappucino?

they’ve all been to starbucks. Not macchiatos.

When at [starbucks] I speak the following: “Doppio macchiato, extra dry”

Or ask for SHORT cappucino

[The Poet nods] Café au lait

coffee, steamed milk, even proportions



I’m a fake professional Drinking decaf tea

Kerouac          standing@desola-
tion peak updside down
why are we all upside down

That book damN Near put me off kerouac forever

Words? —

The assembled, in their particular order. Never before
Have I stuck with one book for three months

I read all books in random order these days, sometimes moving from the middle to the beginning and then end

these days it’s only been working if i swallow them darn near whole. lots of chuck palahniuk

I like bhikku

Not read. trying for fiction. been TOO many years

Poetic language theory Wittgenstein, speak-ing about gradation of language utilitarian, vs. litererary —

language — particularly the language of politics — has been fascinating me of late

it is a class of language all its own a very researched, intended

AND spoken in words that don’t mean the things they are purported To express

— maybe silence answers languages longing

if silence = lack of WORDS and MOVEMENT, (NOT) the dictionary definition: lack of sound

— yes, inner silence, in which sounds exist as they will, word not as they never have

Not named; but can inner silence negate the need/desire for communication in the form of language? Will we [NOT] want still, to find words, even in our minds, to describe that which we feel?

we are void, and within there is no mind — but
in the event we need to achieve “communication” information is, therefore directly perceptible

How, then, can such communication be conveyed — as in, with intent?

by merging with intent intent precedes will

must we then will our intent in varying directions, to be absorbed by only those the communication is intended for?

How does space describe direction?

it does not. content leaves source bound in direction, must pass through space to reach recipient; intended or not

— So, by be-ing mergéd w/intent, which is pure existence — absolute — intent is the:form=content, then the answer is seen as; how does the presence of the universe make our presence within it known —
this is progress of consciousness. this is the only communication
(the apperception of) Love.

Love i see, understand, feel, convey without intent; convey sometimes without intent and there-fore, communication without intent [may be] love (is?) but with, more perceptibly love — though perhaps hate — and only that which is intentionally conveyed can most assuredly be almost un-love, but for the unconveyed

I understand that Love is awareness of various focul points the know-ing of how to move between such it is as the greater “intent” it is the know-ing same love to the universe is aware—ness, impersonal
what is a “person loving” anyways? I AM
the Universe

person loving = all, in their purest, knowing, un-knowing, whichever, both, universe (or not)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.