inquiry

> I still wanna write the “next great American novel”, > still want some level of recognition, and as Duane > “Master of Disaster” Peters says: “I still gotta make > my mark”. I don't know if I will get there, though. I > don't waste my time with doubt because if I have the > creative juices TO write a great book, I wouldn't waste my > time with doubting how well it could do. Or the reviews > it would get. Or the feedback I would receive. To simply > DO the thing would be enough.

You kind of are doing it, here – just not in accord with the polished novel archetype.

> The Siekielski brothers’ excellent work was on the > headlines for weeks to come, but — as one could expect > — it changed nothing.

How could it when news is “without”, whereas change can only come from “within”? (Never mind the fact that most news is merely self-righteous variation on the theme of “shit's fucked up” – as if reading/hearing that indefinitely could lead to much beyond deafness of ears....)

I'm vaguely remembering someone tossing about a phrase akin to “be the change” in these parts semi-recently. That sounds closer to what could possibly work, albeit only were it occur at masses scale. But how could that possibly come to pass – especially when most think simply repeating such a phrase in their head is the same as literally be-ing change?

<goes back to looking forward to non-existence>

> Kundabuffer

Holy cowbells! I've not seen that word since the last time I read Gurdjieff's “Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson”!

> The problems of poverty, income inequality, climate > change, racism, oppression, misinformation can all be > talking points but the messaging has been loud and clear, > if it doesn't suit our self interest, then it doesn't suit > anything else either.

Bingo, Ringo!