Turning to beauty

In writing I find great value in the art of following. In neither a passive way nor an overly demanding way, to follow.

On the page there is a discourse with intention; there is a moment of approaching and then commentary on that, or a reaction. At least, this is an ideal, I aspire to this in my work. This approach to experience is interesting because it engages a certain amount of personal involvement: Presentness, a suppleness to different voices. The thought has to open to change, but only so far as it is communicated. It seems to me this type of poetic engagement is close to social interactions, or intimate relations. In an intimate interaction form is not definite, but there is a constant stream of intention from different people. And often I find the ones who are present are able to create an intention towards something. A kind of awareness, or acceptance to respond to a situation. There is beauty to social gracefulness, whether it happens to be in the more traditional sense of social grace or intriguing due to the sheer idiosyncratic possibilities. It is this openness to different intentions, or sense of appropriate, that allows for a feeling of something third between people. Simply call it the relationship; and like how art creates a relationship with both the medium and the audience, art will give us a clue towards creating relationships that have more interest. And we can all grow our gardens.

On the other side of this issue is the public forum, or form. This takes a type of assumed or generally accepted way of investigating a situation, such as an oration or an essay, or a senate meeting. People have a certain understanding of the type of rhetorical engagement that concerns the situation. It demands a more precise way of approaching issues, a precision that can be measured against an absolute. There is a generally understood vocabulary in this public forum, each person has a guide that maps out how each word or action will be understood. This type of strictness allows people to come to the forum with a sense of general history and I would imagine a type of nostalgia steeps in. It tests people in a manner; asks them to let go of their idiosyncratic behavior and use the general form to engage with what is being said. Ideally this social understanding is based on the factual world, or things that we can each precisely understand, like inches and dollars. Such things, instruments, allow for clarity; we can test something up against a general.

Though as we move away from measurements and into even something like money, the understanding or value of these (instruments) tends to get misunderstood. Such measurable reality lacks meaning, the meaning of compositional or contextual reality. The specifics of a situation allow for different forms of interpretation of value. The public value relies upon a public sensibility, and as we come to a ‘world culture’, or the postmodern dilemma, the general value changes in different contexts. The way that the public forum affects the intimate is hard to understand, is hard to feel a forehand. For example in scientific research papers, I have noticed that most of the effort goes into understanding the measurable reality of situations. The context for the situation becomes forgotten, often the issue feels harder to discern. The ideal in science is to eliminate unnecessary variables. Not to dismiss all value of the public forum, there is great amount of power, but the rules tighten understanding and reactions to it becomes restricted. The necessary space for something else to happen is diminished. On the one hand. we need the definitions to allow us to comprehend our place, and on the other the rules are guidelines towards how the space is realized. Just as eyes define our world, the public forum, whether historical or storybook, give new parameters to our world. My space is no longer simply my room that I go into in the evening; the money I spend, for example, is moved across the globe, and it is this ability to imagine or comprehend other spaces that my action may involve that must be cultivated.

It seems to me that our world puts a great deal of weight into measurements, at least in the way that the culture of science has come to dominate; though against this measurability is our interpretations of the world. The science’s cultural aspiration is to be an absolute, true in any form of comprehension. Though what this seems to do is make it difficult to discern the implications of this understanding. Because language is divorced from the value of the worlds behind them. And I think in its place people have grown to re-contextualize this vocabulary; though without the same specificity towards the language that has produced it. Thus, stealing the breath behind the words, because each time it is used there will be an overabundance of interpretations for this language. As Pound once tried to show the greater poetic tendency that the Chinese language has over ours. The word red as interpreted by a westerner means a type of wave-photon, and the word red in Chinese contains images of things that are red. But to me the importance of the understanding behind this type of thinking, is our ability to comprehend in a experiential way what it is that we are trying to say. And so it is this importance of specificity behind the intention of the word that needs to be understood to find the specificity of understanding what is important for communication.

There is something I am trying to find between the relationship of an essay and infrastructure, and the intimate world and poetry. The intimate is about how this infrastructure is used, what the value of it is. Why it is important to us, because the infrastructure is basically comfort; comforts are nice, but still they are supplementary, we enjoy them. We enjoy them for something, and it seems to me the most value is in knowing how to find joy in something. Poetry is an effort to bring us back to how we enjoy something, to bring the emotion back into the world. Reasons have taken hold of the imagination as we have grown to master truth. Our de-contextualized language grows in power, and in replacing art as an understanding of our language, we have the world of entertainment. To me entertainment’s ability to use the language of the infrastructure is within the bounds of this form, but often enough understanding is sacrificed. As the specificity within this language is purely towards itself without the ability to mark experiences outside of itself. Entertainment rules supreme in an effort to dumb down personal understanding but replaces enjoyment with accepting the absolute parameters of the public forum that has become our infrastructure. In the engagement that I argue, that tends to comes out of the public forum — creation of a general language that all can appreciate — the intention is lost to a generality towards the desire to attract larger crowds.

Poetry practices this part of us that asks us what are we trying to bring into being. On the page or perhaps hovering just millimeters away is the first place poetry begins, and in our struggle to say something I often go in and out of enjoying what’s there. Reminder to self. The page asks me to mean something, or at least mean something enough for it to be read (assuming that is your desired goal). And wrestle. Wrestle with saying something that can be understood. Exercises personal independence as a person. The form sets a particular type of parameter of interaction — to me it is like a club. A group that is open to anyone and everyone understands, within reason, what will happen. A club meets for a small part of the day, and while I find the exercise to be interesting and possibly refreshing, it lacks a greater context of nowness. Everyone who comes to the club is coming from different places and different types of awareness, and under the forum everyone can come together. But often enough what we are doing has so many different aspects to it that it is not easily expressed in a form. The many different types of intention that occur in any living situation ask us to learn how to interact. The word that comes most readily to mind is communication.

But the intention of poetry is like waking up in the morning, and not really knowing what will happen but you have to start somewhere! And then once you begin there is a continual meandering between ever changing leaves of choices between paths. Allowing ourselves to make something meaningful. To follow first our imagination, our ability to desire, and then second to learn how to manifest it. And the manifest nature of poetry to me is a type of awareness, and it is this awareness that comes across on the page. It asks how we are looking, what we are looking at, but mostly it asks us to notice if this is what we want to be doing.

Like a thirsty flower that drinks from the sky and a ground of a different approach, because we can see what our approach feels like to us. We can read the poem again, and the total process of NOTICING involves reacting personally. And it also asks us to NOTICE if this is what we want to be doing. Perhaps this is truly the same thing, learning about ourselves is learning to react to ourselves, to communicate with ourselves. And learning not only what it is that we are doing but how does that feel.

What goes on in the page? What goes into a song when music plays? How does this relate to my own state of awareness? The greater context for me is everything that was, my memory, the sum total of my understanding of myself. And then there is the present! And learning how these two interact with each other, the page gives me a place to start to see how this self-awareness unfolds itself in the present moment. How one part of me feels about another part, but mostly how it is I feel, and how these parts feel.

Sometimes I notice that when writing there is a overabundance of leftovers from something else. And writing this type of excess is fun, almost like a dream but often enough without the freedom of a dream. When I look back on the chaos of just writing I feel as though there is nothing there. There was no intention, ‘point’, I was not sharing myself with anything or anyone. Saying something to someone can be a test of value, because after I have said something I can see whether that meant anything. And having this creation of meaning I now have a history for myself. I become no longer isolated in the greater chaos of creation unfolding around me, but I have some sense of my own relative nature. This relative understanding of myself involves me with a world, both intimately (as I may try to write to someone personally) and publicly as I engage myself with a tradition.

But truly my emphasis towards poetry is a personal one. I decided to choose it as my own practice in college. I was talking about religious practices and someone once commented to me, why are we still practicing? The way I reacted to that was to think about other sorts of practices, like practicing an instrument. And though there is the more immediate answer in practicing an instrument, in that we have to learn how to use the instrument — many musicians I know are interested in music that is made without a concern for structure, or at least an understanding. I think the underlying feeling behind this is to explore a more natural expression. To find a way of hearing music that could be closer to a personal expression and to move away from working out of tonal and rhythmic form. But the advantage of practicing to me is finding a comfort with something, to practice something until we feel comfortable in just doing whatever it is that we are trying to do. The tradition gives us something to talk to, and can we maintain this personal type of expression and still be a part of tradition?

The issues that come out of this are ones connected to form, personal interactions, tradition and some of my ideas of organic. A tradition to me finds itself in an interesting relationship to the issue of personal and formal engagement, and I think will help in finding organic behavior.

Stravinsky once said that tradition presupposes ‘the reality of what endures’. After thinking about this, the best way I could relate to this idea of a changing tradition was to imagine the audience of a tradition. The tradition presupposes some group of people, some culture of understanding. It is this value of actually talking to someone that gives a tradition its power, the practice is not an isolated form but opens itself up to a world of people who also choose to evaluate the world by it. Though as a teacher of mine once pointed out, what happens when a tradition loses its audience, as for instance classical music — is it a dying culture?

When we try to express what we are saying; the intimate value behind the words is difficult to reach. When we describe a pleasant evening, or someone’s beauty there are layers of cultural specifics in what beauty is or what pleasant entails. When I sit down and talk to someone there are different experiences going on and it can be difficult to understand exactly how each person reacts to the interaction. But from experiences, there is a surface reality, present — floating speechless in the interactions. What happened? There is an understanding of what happened. The effort that went into communicating or moment sharing with someone can be felt by all parties. Not only is the meaning but the intention of the person is understood. And even the words themselves imply a cultural tradition.

And like the problem of a dying culture, the only solution I can think of is to continue to write to/with people. Not necessarily create a new culture or community, but it is in dialogue that intention can be found. And the unifying agent of reality becomes actualized. What I mean by that is I think humans have a great capacity for differentiation, and I may even propose that what I mean by form is a way of differentiating. A type of pulling apart that we can begin to see what is going on, both how each part works and how they interact. So this approach allows for a great value or truth that can be appreciated. But in communicating, whereas it still presupposes a separation it implies experiencing the form of connection, whether this communication happens between people, working with nature, or even within the person themself.

Take a look at farming. This implies a form of creation or communication with nature itself, learning how to interact and create. It gives an understanding of the material, or an even better example might be sculpture or the like. When we feel conflicted about something, or even for example when we notice some habit and try to change it, we are communicating with it. Even writing poetry can be a form of talking to ourselves, but like in communicating it is realizing the intention behind each exchange that is important. Like with my own thoughts, they are often so short that I am not actually saying anything but just realizing what I would be saying. But to somehow let the moment itself become experienced,allows for different aspects of ourselves to come into being. Or in the case of habits there is a part of us that we can try to change, and in the communication between our parts the whole can begin to be experienced and healed if so the desire.

Form of beauty. This is the fountain from which I am trying to fill my bucket. It could be said that talking for a half hour is communication, but I think most likely it would not be in a meaningful way (cases like classes, lectures, etc excluded). Or at least once the other becomes part of the communication there is a meaningful exchange. The fact that beauty has never been adequately explained says something for this. Although beauty is something that is noticed by many people, something that is comprehended but not necessarily understood. And while even conversing may be easier to grasp, or comprehend the other person’s own personal sensibility, because in actually experiencing the other person the context is present. And this understanding gives us some clues to the core, or what I mean by the type of personal involvement, but as we try to interact all we have is the surface. I mean to say there is a connection between the inner intention behind words and their surface expression in beauty. Basically I am saying there is expression and meaning, the expression gives a sense of surface reality. And the meaning implies something that we can only hope to achieve to express.

It is noticing how the intention on the page manifests into surface reality, what type of creation has meaning, or an ability to communicate. When I write sometimes there is nothing interesting going on. It may have been fun to write, but later it seems as though I might as well throw it out. But the stuff that I really like of mine are pieces that when I look back upon them, they are still enjoyable. So writing gives me a place to discern between more indulgent forms of interactions and the more substantial. And so it is my idea to aggregate toward an involvement with a tradition, or the intention towards creating something out of writing that has value. If we use writing, or art, as a way of beginning to look at ourselves we can begin to discern in ourselves what sorts of activities have an ability to create value.

To find in ourselves what the world feels like, or how interacting feels. The page practices interpreting ourselves in a space that involves realizing ourselves on it. And from this realization learn how to take this act of interpretation into other spaces.

If you accept this understanding of beauty, it is by beauty that I think we can find a way to create that can involve the increasing plurality of the world and also our own sense of personal history. As we give space to something, time for reflection, the beauty comes out. It can be comprehended, and likewise as we try to talk to different people, or engage different people with beauty, we can leave behind idiosyncratic indulgences. It begs us to practice different parts of ourselves as we strive to express ourselves to different people.

In a field I rest

a nest of crumbled pages

narrow scraps of words

folds of circumstance…

In writing I find great value in the art of following. In neither a passive way nor an overly demanding way, to follow.

On the page there is a discourse with intention; there is a moment of approaching and then commentary on that, or a reaction. At least, this is an ideal, I aspire to this in my work. This approach to experience is interesting because it engages a certain amount of personal involvement: Presentness, a suppleness to different voices. The thought has to open to change, but only so far as it is communicated. It seems to me this type of poetic engagement is close to social interactions, or intimate relations. In an intimate interaction form is not definite, but there is a constant stream of intention from different people. And often I find the ones who are present are able to create an intention towards something. A kind of awareness, or acceptance to respond to a situation. There is beauty to social gracefulness, whether it happens to be in the more traditional sense of social grace or intriguing due to the sheer idiosyncratic possibilities. It is this openness to different intentions, or sense of appropriate, that allows for a feeling of something third between people. Simply call it the relationship; and like how art creates a relationship with both the medium and the audience, art will give us a clue towards creating relationships that have more interest. And we can all grow our gardens.

On the other side of this issue is the public forum, or form. This takes a type of assumed or generally accepted way of investigating a situation, such as an oration or an essay, or a senate meeting. People have a certain understanding of the type of rhetorical engagement that concerns the situation. It demands a more precise way of approaching issues, a precision that can be measured against an absolute. There is a generally understood vocabulary in this public forum, each person has a guide that maps out how each word or action will be understood. This type of strictness allows people to come to the forum with a sense of general history and I would imagine a type of nostalgia steeps in. It tests people in a manner; asks them to let go of their idiosyncratic behavior and use the general form to engage with what is being said. Ideally this social understanding is based on the factual world, or things that we can each precisely understand, like inches and dollars. Such things, instruments, allow for clarity; we can test something up against a general.

Though as we move away from measurements and into even something like money, the understanding or value of these (instruments) tends to get misunderstood. Such measurable reality lacks meaning, the meaning of compositional or contextual reality. The specifics of a situation allow for different forms of interpretation of value. The public value relies upon a public sensibility, and as we come to a ‘world culture’, or the postmodern dilemma, the general value changes in different contexts. The way that the public forum affects the intimate is hard to understand, is hard to feel a forehand. For example in scientific research papers, I have noticed that most of the effort goes into understanding the measurable reality of situations. The context for the situation becomes forgotten, often the issue feels harder to discern. The ideal in science is to eliminate unnecessary variables. Not to dismiss all value of the public forum, there is great amount of power, but the rules tighten understanding and reactions to it becomes restricted. The necessary space for something else to happen is diminished. On the one hand. we need the definitions to allow us to comprehend our place, and on the other the rules are guidelines towards how the space is realized. Just as eyes define our world, the public forum, whether historical or storybook, give new parameters to our world. My space is no longer simply my room that I go into in the evening; the money I spend, for example, is moved across the globe, and it is this ability to imagine or comprehend other spaces that my action may involve that must be cultivated.

It seems to me that our world puts a great deal of weight into measurements, at least in the way that the culture of science has come to dominate; though against this measurability is our interpretations of the world. The science’s cultural aspiration is to be an absolute, true in any form of comprehension. Though what this seems to do is make it difficult to discern the implications of this understanding. Because language is divorced from the value of the worlds behind them. And I think in its place people have grown to re-contextualize this vocabulary; though without the same specificity towards the language that has produced it. Thus, stealing the breath behind the words, because each time it is used there will be an overabundance of interpretations for this language. As Pound once tried to show the greater poetic tendency that the Chinese language has over ours. The word red as interpreted by a westerner means a type of wave-photon, and the word red in Chinese contains images of things that are red. But to me the importance of the understanding behind this type of thinking, is our ability to comprehend in a experiential way what it is that we are trying to say. And so it is this importance of specificity behind the intention of the word that needs to be understood to find the specificity of understanding what is important for communication.

There is something I am trying to find between the relationship of an essay and infrastructure, and the intimate world and poetry. The intimate is about how this infrastructure is used, what the value of it is. Why it is important to us, because the infrastructure is basically comfort; comforts are nice, but still they are supplementary, we enjoy them. We enjoy them for something, and it seems to me the most value is in knowing how to find joy in something. Poetry is an effort to bring us back to how we enjoy something, to bring the emotion back into the world. Reasons have taken hold of the imagination as we have grown to master truth. Our de-contextualized language grows in power, and in replacing art as an understanding of our language, we have the world of entertainment. To me entertainment’s ability to use the language of the infrastructure is within the bounds of this form, but often enough understanding is sacrificed. As the specificity within this language is purely towards itself without the ability to mark experiences outside of itself. Entertainment rules supreme in an effort to dumb down personal understanding but replaces enjoyment with accepting the absolute parameters of the public forum that has become our infrastructure. In the engagement that I argue, that tends to comes out of the public forum — creation of a general language that all can appreciate — the intention is lost to a generality towards the desire to attract larger crowds.

Poetry practices this part of us that asks us what are we trying to bring into being. On the page or perhaps hovering just millimeters away is the first place poetry begins, and in our struggle to say something I often go in and out of enjoying what’s there. Reminder to self. The page asks me to mean something, or at least mean something enough for it to be read (assuming that is your desired goal). And wrestle. Wrestle with saying something that can be understood. Exercises personal independence as a person. The form sets a particular type of parameter of interaction — to me it is like a club. A group that is open to anyone and everyone understands, within reason, what will happen. A club meets for a small part of the day, and while I find the exercise to be interesting and possibly refreshing, it lacks a greater context of nowness. Everyone who comes to the club is coming from different places and different types of awareness, and under the forum everyone can come together. But often enough what we are doing has so many different aspects to it that it is not easily expressed in a form. The many different types of intention that occur in any living situation ask us to learn how to interact. The word that comes most readily to mind is communication.

But the intention of poetry is like waking up in the morning, and not really knowing what will happen but you have to start somewhere! And then once you begin there is a continual meandering between ever changing leaves of choices between paths. Allowing ourselves to make something meaningful. To follow first our imagination, our ability to desire, and then second to learn how to manifest it. And the manifest nature of poetry to me is a type of awareness, and it is this awareness that comes across on the page. It asks how we are looking, what we are looking at, but mostly it asks us to notice if this is what we want to be doing.

Like a thirsty flower that drinks from the sky and a ground of a different approach, because we can see what our approach feels like to us. We can read the poem again, and the total process of NOTICING involves reacting personally. And it also asks us to NOTICE if this is what we want to be doing. Perhaps this is truly the same thing, learning about ourselves is learning to react to ourselves, to communicate with ourselves. And learning not only what it is that we are doing but how does that feel.

What goes on in the page? What goes into a song when music plays? How does this relate to my own state of awareness? The greater context for me is everything that was, my memory, the sum total of my understanding of myself. And then there is the present! And learning how these two interact with each other, the page gives me a place to start to see how this self-awareness unfolds itself in the present moment. How one part of me feels about another part, but mostly how it is I feel, and how these parts feel.

Sometimes I notice that when writing there is a overabundance of leftovers from something else. And writing this type of excess is fun, almost like a dream but often enough without the freedom of a dream. When I look back on the chaos of just writing I feel as though there is nothing there. There was no intention, ‘point’, I was not sharing myself with anything or anyone. Saying something to someone can be a test of value, because after I have said something I can see whether that meant anything. And having this creation of meaning I now have a history for myself. I become no longer isolated in the greater chaos of creation unfolding around me, but I have some sense of my own relative nature. This relative understanding of myself involves me with a world, both intimately (as I may try to write to someone personally) and publicly as I engage myself with a tradition.

But truly my emphasis towards poetry is a personal one. I decided to choose it as my own practice in college. I was talking about religious practices and someone once commented to me, why are we still practicing? The way I reacted to that was to think about other sorts of practices, like practicing an instrument. And though there is the more immediate answer in practicing an instrument, in that we have to learn how to use the instrument — many musicians I know are interested in music that is made without a concern for structure, or at least an understanding. I think the underlying feeling behind this is to explore a more natural expression. To find a way of hearing music that could be closer to a personal expression and to move away from working out of tonal and rhythmic form. But the advantage of practicing to me is finding a comfort with something, to practice something until we feel comfortable in just doing whatever it is that we are trying to do. The tradition gives us something to talk to, and can we maintain this personal type of expression and still be a part of tradition?

The issues that come out of this are ones connected to form, personal interactions, tradition and some of my ideas of organic. A tradition to me finds itself in an interesting relationship to the issue of personal and formal engagement, and I think will help in finding organic behavior.

Stravinsky once said that tradition presupposes ‘the reality of what endures’. After thinking about this, the best way I could relate to this idea of a changing tradition was to imagine the audience of a tradition. The tradition presupposes some group of people, some culture of understanding. It is this value of actually talking to someone that gives a tradition its power, the practice is not an isolated form but opens itself up to a world of people who also choose to evaluate the world by it. Though as a teacher of mine once pointed out, what happens when a tradition loses its audience, as for instance classical music — is it a dying culture?

When we try to express what we are saying; the intimate value behind the words is difficult to reach. When we describe a pleasant evening, or someone’s beauty there are layers of cultural specifics in what beauty is or what pleasant entails. When I sit down and talk to someone there are different experiences going on and it can be difficult to understand exactly how each person reacts to the interaction. But from experiences, there is a surface reality, present — floating speechless in the interactions. What happened? There is an understanding of what happened. The effort that went into communicating or moment sharing with someone can be felt by all parties. Not only is the meaning but the intention of the person is understood. And even the words themselves imply a cultural tradition.

And like the problem of a dying culture, the only solution I can think of is to continue to write to/with people. Not necessarily create a new culture or community, but it is in dialogue that intention can be found. And the unifying agent of reality becomes actualized. What I mean by that is I think humans have a great capacity for differentiation, and I may even propose that what I mean by form is a way of differentiating. A type of pulling apart that we can begin to see what is going on, both how each part works and how they interact. So this approach allows for a great value or truth that can be appreciated. But in communicating, whereas it still presupposes a separation it implies experiencing the form of connection, whether this communication happens between people, working with nature, or even within the person themself.

Take a look at farming. This implies a form of creation or communication with nature itself, learning how to interact and create. It gives an understanding of the material, or an even better example might be sculpture or the like. When we feel conflicted about something, or even for example when we notice some habit and try to change it, we are communicating with it. Even writing poetry can be a form of talking to ourselves, but like in communicating it is realizing the intention behind each exchange that is important. Like with my own thoughts, they are often so short that I am not actually saying anything but just realizing what I would be saying. But to somehow let the moment itself become experienced,allows for different aspects of ourselves to come into being. Or in the case of habits there is a part of us that we can try to change, and in the communication between our parts the whole can begin to be experienced and healed if so the desire.

Form of beauty. This is the fountain from which I am trying to fill my bucket. It could be said that talking for a half hour is communication, but I think most likely it would not be in a meaningful way (cases like classes, lectures, etc excluded). Or at least once the other becomes part of the communication there is a meaningful exchange. The fact that beauty has never been adequately explained says something for this. Although beauty is something that is noticed by many people, something that is comprehended but not necessarily understood. And while even conversing may be easier to grasp, or comprehend the other person’s own personal sensibility, because in actually experiencing the other person the context is present. And this understanding gives us some clues to the core, or what I mean by the type of personal involvement, but as we try to interact all we have is the surface. I mean to say there is a connection between the inner intention behind words and their surface expression in beauty. Basically I am saying there is expression and meaning, the expression gives a sense of surface reality. And the meaning implies something that we can only hope to achieve to express.

It is noticing how the intention on the page manifests into surface reality, what type of creation has meaning, or an ability to communicate. When I write sometimes there is nothing interesting going on. It may have been fun to write, but later it seems as though I might as well throw it out. But the stuff that I really like of mine are pieces that when I look back upon them, they are still enjoyable. So writing gives me a place to discern between more indulgent forms of interactions and the more substantial. And so it is my idea to aggregate toward an involvement with a tradition, or the intention towards creating something out of writing that has value. If we use writing, or art, as a way of beginning to look at ourselves we can begin to discern in ourselves what sorts of activities have an ability to create value.

To find in ourselves what the world feels like, or how interacting feels. The page practices interpreting ourselves in a space that involves realizing ourselves on it. And from this realization learn how to take this act of interpretation into other spaces.

If you accept this understanding of beauty, it is by beauty that I think we can find a way to create that can involve the increasing plurality of the world and also our own sense of personal history. As we give space to something, time for reflection, the beauty comes out. It can be comprehended, and likewise as we try to talk to different people, or engage different people with beauty, we can leave behind idiosyncratic indulgences. It begs us to practice different parts of ourselves as we strive to express ourselves to different people.

In a field I rest

a nest of crumbled pages

narrow scraps of words

folds of circumstance…

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Sean Callender’s story.