Free verse № 140651
Numbers In Heaven
My name is 183,
one of myriad,
born in heaven,
nestled eternally
between two evens,
and called, with affection,
odd.
Some of us are prime,
numbers so perfect
they were flung
to distant worlds,
if maybe there, their beauty
too might be beheld.
I take delight in knowing
I am certain,
fixed and real,
never to be forsaken
or replaced,
unique, useful,
unmatched and unmatchable.
Pregnant with potential
in Platonic minds,
we odds alone,
save the chosen 2,
titillate their senses.
Sometimes in anxious moments,
Senses failing,
in the wonder of it all,
I feel an urgent sadness,
imagine myself a figment
of their god-like minds,
a bipolar disturbance,
perhaps a mere conveyance,
no more than an assertion,
a useful word.
Then I feel contrived by them
for pleasure and convenience,
lovely only in their minds.
But as the notion passes,
I rest in heavenly peace,
unequaled and real,
fixed and founded,
uniquely placed
by God.
196 comments
'Called, with affection, odd'
Marvellous. 9
12 = 3 times 4
3 = the number of God
4 = the number of the universe
Therefore 12 = the number of everything
So if you were writing a gospel of revelations, 183 could indeed be highly symbolic. Or it could be a number plucked purely at random off a number tree. I really don't know.
King Kong
1. King Kong to Naomi Watts
2. Watts to Sean Penn in 21 Grams
3. Penn to Kevin Bacon in Mystic River.
From the original:
1. King Kong to Bruce Cabot (the orig. Jack Driscoll)
2. Cabot to John Wayne in Chisum
3. John Wayne to Robert Duvall in True Grit
4. Duvall to Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder
5. Cruise to Kevin Bacon in Top Gun.
1.Bacon w/Gary Oldman in JFK
2. Oldman w/Monica Bellucci in Dracula
3. Bellucci w/Agent Smith guy in The Matrix trilogy
4. Agent Smith guy in Lord of the Rings Directed by Peter Jackson
5. Peter Jackson directed King Kong.
Fred Ott.
(hint)-Fred Ott was a lab technician for Thomas Edison.
1. Ott to Edison (director) in "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze"
2. Edison (producer) to Vivian Reed in The Patchwork Girl of Oz
3. Reed to Jimmy Stewart in Vivacious Lady
4. Stewart to Kathleen Quinlan in Airport '77
5. Quinlan (Tom Hanks' wife) to Kevin Bacon in Apollo 13.
"fred ott has a Kevin Bacon number of infinity.
fred ott cannot be linked to Kevin Bacon using only feature films.
About 12% of all actors cannot be linked to the rest of the movie universe, either because they have appeared only in TV features or straight-to-video releases that the Oracle doesn't count, or because they have not appeared in any features with actors from the Hollywood mainstream."
On second thought, I doubt "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze" would fit their criteria.
For two, the man friggin' sneezes on, like, the first film ever. Give him some credit.
I'd like to run it by UVA and see what they think. When I actually did this full-time, OOB was my Bible. I bet they're looking for actor-actor connections, and not actor-director or actor-producer. Considering Ott's alone in the films he's in, that would make things kind of difficult.
IMDB has three Fred Ott acting credits (he plays himself in two):
The Kiss (1900) .... Himself
Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze (1894) .... Sneezing Man
... aka Fred Ott's Sneeze
Fred Ott Holding a Bird (1894) .... Himself
Full time?
1.Ott to Edison in The Sneeze
2.Edison to Bronco Billy Anderson in The Great Train Robbery
3.Anderson to Chaplin in The Champ
4.Chaplin to Sophia Loren in The Countess of Hong Kong
5.Sophia Loren to William Devane in La Mortadella
6.Devane to Bacon in Hollow Man
E = 5th
E = 5th
1 + 9 + 5 + 5 = 20
= 4 + 4 x 4
http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.j
(scroll about one-third-way down.)
Do you think she really thinks she won all of those?
Your treatments, frankly, don't make me see that beauty. I'm not saying that to be a jerk. Maybe it's that you don't give enough information or make the necessary connections. Or maybe it's that your observations seem, I don't know, somewhat contradictory or superficial. For example--what's the significance of 183? It's not a prime (though you go on to extol primes). It's odd, true, but so? Maybe the problem is that I just don't bring the necessary math chops to the table, but I don't think it's that alone.
You tap into a long tradition of seeing numbers as divinely inspired (I think that's part of what you're saying), from Gallileo to Erdos (not a believer, but he liked the divine analogy well enough) and beyond. And the reference to the the Platonic--abstract, unchanging truths--gives this some context it might otherwise lack. But some of it doesn't seem to hang together or perhaps just isn't fleshed out enough.
I do think your subject choices are often unusual and ambitious, which is commendable. And you do have a knack for inspiring reaction!
My head hurts.
1) The symbols and sounds themselves. That is, first you make a w, then a schwa, then a n, and you have 'one'. Or you make a straight vertical line, possibly with a little cap - 1. Well, that's just clodly. Obviously, if every English speaker died or forgot English, there would be no "one" or "1". There would just be "uno", "waHad", ")" or any of a million things. You can't be talking about that.
2) The values themselves. How, in a universe with no intelligent life, you could have a plum and another plum, and you, Dovina, showing up from our universe can say, "Look, a plum and a plum - two plums!", just like in our universe. So then you're not really talking about the independent existence of numbers or number-symbols; you're just talking about the independent existence of OBJECTS: the plums continue to exist even if no one's there to see them. So why don't you just say that? Oh, because numbers are magic. And you're a clod. If you're not, you can't possibly be talking about that.
3) How numbers, the things we call 1, 2, 3, and so on, perfectly correspond to whole objects. Well, obviously. and we have names for all the things that don't correspond to whole objects, like pi, e, or 9.126923683427. For obvious reasons, we've used the shorter symbols to refer to whole things, since we're more likely to be talking about whole eggs or goats. Is that what's so magical? That we made up a short symbol for something we talk about regularly? Then you are a loon.
4) Plato was actually talking about how circles and spheres not only EXIST outside human consciousness, but that they're BEAUTIFUL and PERFECT outside human consciousness. Like, if all humans died and another intelligent species came along millennia later and made a sphere, it would think spheres are the acest shape, too. And gold. They'd think gold was the best substance, because it's, like, God's substance, and God's not going to let anyone forget about it. Do you see how this can't possibly be what you're talking about, rambling about perfect 183? Do you see how, if it is, you're the not-brightest person ever?
Of course, to me, it's academic anyway (given that I don't actually buy the concept of "divine").
For Number 183, who believes she was created in heaven, unique and useful to her creator, âeternityâ is not a junk word. She will live forever, usefully serving her master and receiving pleasure from those who recognize her beauty and adore her.
But at times, she feels that perhaps none of it is true, and just maybe sheâs no more than a concoction, a useful idea. In those moments, she fears that âeternityâ is a lie and a junk word.
I suppose that given a couple years, maybe Iâll work my way up to Nietzsche and the modern philosophers who debunk the intrinsic value of numbers. For now I rather enjoy winning some of these disputes, as evidenced by no answer being given to my argument, but cries of âBlatherer!â, âMoron!â, like shrill barks of a small dog. But without this freedom in anonymity, it wouldn't be fun anymore would it?
I still like the concept of this poem, although it does feel very film-esque.
183 is only unique in it's abstract form as a meaningless number. Once you attach it to something, let's say 183 apples, then it becomes a statement of how many of the same thing are in a group. Apple 183 must have something in common with apple 182 and so on, otherwise they wouldn't be grouped and numbered. Sure you could say each apple is different but you can say that about any two things at least at a quantum level. The point is you count things based on simularities. If 183 is you it's not unique because there's at least 184 of you according to your poem. If 183 is just a number then it has no reason to be in this poem so it's junk.
ALChemy - what about a group of hypothetical concepts/objects that are grouped together solely because they're totally different? Then 'Article #183' would be unique.
Imagine the irony if it was also a eunuch.
183 is a number as is 184 and 182. At least you applied 183 to something. She's using it like it was one of The Letter People except it's a number and it's in heaven. Sure it's cute and all but it's also kinda naive.
"cookout".
Though this did make an uneventful Monday fly by.
So much for not getting sucked into the 'ranker comments feature again. Sigh.
Poems (topics) waiting to be written by me:
Amish
Buffalo
Wind generators
'Put no trust in princes, in mortal man in whom there is no help. Take their breath, they return to clay, and their plans that day come to NOTHING.'
As for Dovina being 183, what's the odds that she isn't an angel in your company?
Wouldn't it be a really cool thing for God to make human beings well enough that they could solve problems? I think it would. It would be better than him making us just awful. And do you really believe God sitting up in his workshop says, I'm going to make humans utterly incompetent! That'll show 'em!
And making good people would be a good way of helping the world without being obvious. Like say He sees India is having a lot of trouble under British Rule and says, "Hey, I'll make a really great guy named Gandhi who's able to help out the country." Don't you agree it's possible that God works like that?
Sure, God also makes bad people, the way I see it. But I believe on the whole He makes more good people than bad people, if He does exist. Yes, that's very hypothetical. Because it's my BELIEF. My BELIEF is also that Dovina isn't an actual angel because, one, I don't think angels exist, and two, her ignorance is beyond beyond.
As for God amking good people and bad..... he doesn't. He gives you the choice to be good or bad, to believe in him or not. When it please you, you will say I did so and so to achieve this or that, ie. when good things come your way and you succeed in your life or profession, .... But when it's bad.... it's ' God made bad things happen. How else could it come about?' He doesn't make good or bad. we make it good or bad. And Gandhiji chose to do good rather than 'bad'. So can you.
The strange thing about people who say that a good god would not allow suffering is that they usually also say, âthe human race is, on the whole, intelligent and capable of solving its problems.â They take credit for the good and blame God for the bad, or they say there is no god because of the bad. Amanda is saying that God controls both good and bad. I say that God has left Himself many holes in the apparent order of nature through which to act, and act unreceptively, if He wants to. Like you say, its something I feel, beyond proof. I fully agree that my ignorance is beyond beyond.
re: "The strange thing about people who say that a good god would not allow suffering is that they usually also say, 'the human race is, on the whole, intelligent and capable of solving its problems.'"
Who says both of those things? Certainly not me. In fact, in my experience, people seem to say either one or the other. In short, you are so full of beans you make my eyes hurt. You seem incapable of making sense except by accident.
âThe fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery â even if mixed with fear â that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.â
Works for me.
From my perspective, everything I know about makes perfect sense without including God in my explanations for things. I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to run my life, and I have to say I do pretty well. I'm a very good person. I have no problems in my life. Seriously. When I have had problems in the past, I've taken care of them the best I could by myself, and they've worked out. I don't feel any lack. I don't feel like anything doesn't make sense. I don't feel displeased by life or the usual explanations for things. Why would I include God in things? Really, without already believing, what'll make me interested in believing?
What about your peace of mind, and say things like guilt and remorse for not foreseeing things, feelings like this that might crop up..... how would you handle that. I don't think it would go very well with you. No man can handle stress under sever conditions and a human being is not made to handle extreme and sever pressure. Ther's a limit to everything. Even if you were to go on a long course of anti depressants and mood lifters you will not be able to hold on. Just because you have a rosy picture set for you, or that you have probably set, that doesn't mean that its a surety for future happiness. Think about it.
P.S. I really enjoy these sharings. Hope you do too. After my last post up there, my husband and I had a strong discussion on this, quite contradictory opinions.... and now to return,.... I have a bone to pick with him also.
I've often not had cash in my pocket. I have had rough times. I've seen awful things happen. When people talk about all the crap they go through in their lives, I usually think I've had about the same number of bad things happen to me.
Um, if my wife died...? I honestly can't say. I think I could handle it, but there's no telling. Anyway, I'd mistrust any religion that was so obviously a crutch. I mean, if my wife dies and I just HAVE TO believe that there's an afterlife because I can't stand the thought of her simply being GONE... well, I haven't had any EXPERIENCE of God. I don't have anything showing me there is a heaven. I just have need or want. Want isn't God, to me. It doesn't add to my knowledge or experience.
Anyway, that's all kind of beside the point, for me. I don't mean that I have fewer bad experiences or times in my life, but that when I have a bad time, I really believe I'm going to be able to take care of it on my own. So the experience doesn't seem so bad. I don't know, maybe if I believed in God, if I was fatalistic or lacked confidence, those times would seem worse to me. My life would seem worse. You know?
PS-I enjoy these conversations too.
Judge for yourself =p
But seriously, If Karma didn't work in India where would it?
(I'm devising a more extended answer to the initial question, justification will follow.)
That being said, to (sort of) paraphrase Kempis, I would rather know love than know how to define it.
I'm not sure that's a good answer to your question, but I'll keep trying.
Are you saying that someone who hasn't been in love couldn't see Romeo and Juliet and think "Yes, love is a mysterious and wonderous thing that certainly exists"?
Tell me please, briefly what and why do you believe in love or art?
In reply to Kempis' quote: Why not say I would rather know God than know how to define him? Love is to faith as art is to God.
I feel that by loving, I know an aspect of God. But thatâs an unprovable feeling. I also feel that when, on rare occasion, I create art, that too is an extension of God.
My God, Iâve left a lot of logical holes in this statement. Lambaste me!
Don't forget, ALChemy, that I believe in God. I'm on your side!
However, the notion that God could make people want to sing 'It's Raining Men' puts a serious dent in my belief of supreme intelligence...or at least, supreme taste...
"Someone who hasn't been in love...Romeo and Juliet...'Yes, love is a mysterious and wonderous thing that certainly exists'" - Yes, I am saying precisely that. If someone had lived their entire life devoid of 'love', I sincerely doubt that they would be compelled to believe just through seeing a play. They might be curious enough to find out, but they wouldn't suddenly believe.
What do I believe love is? That's difficult to answer. Some form of emotional and social bond through prolonged contact with a certain person, maybe? But then, I also think there's a difference between parental love, friendship love and romantic love. When I know what romantic love is, I'll let you know. And do I believe it exists? No. I believe it might exist, but again there's a difference.
Art - that's trickier. Fundamentally it's the appreciation of mastery of a skill - same with sport. Metaphysically though? I'm not convinced. Seeing a painting might trigger a memory associated with a certain emotion, or might cause a train of imaginative thought...but as a connection with God? No. Similarly, when you see someone demonstrate exceptional talent at, say, football, do you think 'That is divinely inspired'?
The actual quote was 'I would rather know remorse...', but I suppose your version works as well.
I think I missed something out in this post...if so I'll rectify things.
If you never grew wings and flew but you saw people who did fly and Shakespeare wrote a great play about it that you saw also wouldn't you think growing wings and flying would be awesome and wouldn't you believe it existed. So those who haven't felt love can still believe it exists and think it's awesome.
Would you say DaVinci and Michael Jordan are gifted? If so, where did the gift come from? Aren't they both divine in that they seem at times to transcend us mere mortals. Why bother with art if it's so impractical?
When people ask me why do I believe in God and more specifically Jesus my answer at this point is for the same reason you might believe in the wonderment and magic of love or the importance of art.
Morality - I don't doubt that my upbringing contributed plenty to how I act, but I honestly don't believe it could have made me as determined to be 'moral' as I actually am. And why is God necessary? Well without an ultimate arbitrator, why on earth shouldn't I go round eliminating all the people I don't like? Or on a more practical level, if we really were stuck in an existential hole, why should I even be nice to people?
Yes, if I never had wings and saw a play where people were flying I probably would think it was awesome. But never in my life have I actually believed it could happen. I used to think it would be awesome to be a scorpion, but I never believed I could become one. And I stick by what I said: if someone had never - and I mean never - experienced love, they might well be amazed at the idea of it and want to go and find out if it was real, but they wouldn't believe with absolute certainty that it did exist. Belief in the possibility of X doesn't equate to belief in X.
Indeed there are truly gifted people. I know a few. And with those gifts seems to come a drawback. The most intellectually, musically and physically gifted person I know also happens to be suicidally depressed. Now to me that makes no sense. If God took an active hand in dealing out gifts, I'm pretty sure that He wouldn't be so wasteful as to put such contradictory traits together. It would make more sense if an average person like myself, who probably won't make any impact on the world, were to have to contend with the darker psychological issues, while those who will make a difference were free to actually make that difference. So I don't think that genius comes directly from God. And as for the individuals you named 'transcending us mere mortals'...well Jordan could kick my ass at basketball (to be fair, that's not saying much) and probably at every other physical activity. But - and I really don't want to sound arrogant here - I'm prepared to bet that I'm better at creative writing than him. And da Vinci...intellectually I'm less than microscopic in comparison, but if we were living at the same time, I'd love to take him on at football. There is no such thing as a person who is universally better than everyone else, so no - they don't transcend us. In a similar vein, their abilities didn't just appear overnight. They had to work for them. The potential might have been innate to them, but if Jordan had never worked out, would he have been able to stun the basketball world? No, I doubt it.
'Why bother with art if it's impractical?' - Because it's nice. Because it's a luxury. What's the point in an existence that has no niceties? Without the creative nuances, life would be extremely monotonous and boring. But there's no logical connection between wanting to amuse ourselves and believing that art comes from God directly.
I probably sound like an uber-sceptic here; I'm actually not and I place a certain amount of stock in spirituality. I think that God set this all up, and set down rules by which we should abide. I just don't think He is the direct cause of absolutely everything. Like natural disasters being 'evil'. What's that all about? Earthquakes, tsunamis etc. can have tragic consequences, but they aren't inherently evil.
In fact, I take a pretty zodiac-esque view of life; I see no reason why God should get me out of a situation that I can't deal with myself.
Sermon over; hit me with anything that I didn't answer properly.
By the way Da Vinci was very athletic. It's been said that he could leap over a man from a standstill and he was incredibly strong. His nickname was L'Uomo Universale (The universal man) in which all skills reside.
And this is where I go off on a rant about how art - and music - has become too technical, too abstract...and is, in my opinion, bordering on becoming frivolous. Art no longer even stirs any emotions - what am I supposed to think when confronted by half a cow? Or by a room with a light that constantly turns on and off? Or a canvas with a small blob of blue and nothing else? These say nothing to me. And whereas I'm not hyper-intellectual, I'm not stupid either - and if they're too abstract for me to appreciate after a bit of thought, then they aren't entertaining.
We once lived without art. It was a long time ago and life was pretty exciting back then, you know, running away from Sabertooth tigers and all that. Art and religion almost popped up hand in hand. Back then we understood love as an act of nature. It wasn't until we started philosiphizing about what it meant that we started adding all these mystical qualities to it. Sure you can say "I don't find love mystical at all" but then whatever kind of love poems would you write? Once they came up with a religion they had to represent it somehow so they invented stories and drew pictures and later on made statues. That's not the connection I'm really talking about. I'm talking about how most people romanticize about art, love and of course God. Does not love ask for your faith?(at least your faith that it's love) Does not art need that at least for the moment a little part of you believes in what you're seeing?
The art you seek is abundant. You just seem to be looking in the wrong place. The stuff you're "ranting" about is just a bunch of experimenters trying to be original and almost always failing horribly.
I think you said it best when you said life would get incredibly tedious if we didn't indulge in the fantastical and mystical impulses we have to make things better than what they really they are. Let our dreams be our blueprints.
"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, 'tis the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true." -Edgar Allan Poe
'Does not art need that at least for the moment a little part of you believes in what you're seeing?' - I'm not sure I get your drift here. I assume you mean that, for example, when you see a tragic play you believe that the play was reality, that the events actually happened. In which case...yes and no. It requires that you forget the realities of this world, forget who you are, forget that you're in a theatre etc. It requires imagination - the mental creation of another world (this could veer off into modal logic which I'm not one hundred percent up to scratch with...) in which the characters are real people, the setting is a real setting, and the history is a real history. But I don't think this is faith - at least, not in a religious sense. If the play's crap, no amount of faith will make it seem real because it just won't fire up the imagination enough to create the necessary world. I still think this is different from religious faith though.
Spot on with the quote though.
Believing in God is natural for me too. But the nature of God is not that clear. What is God like? That is the question.
A lot of ideas have come to my mind on reading your discussion.... but I think I will start from here.
When ever somthing gets uneasy in my life or my relationships with people go topsy turvy, I reflect upon this and see if love has really been there, or whether I have made an effort to keep it ablaze. Romeo and Juliet is just an example of probably sacrifice.... but in my opinion I'd call it more like selfish love, not selfless love. From this play you get and idea or a picture of what love probably is, but to experience and know it for real, one has to put all the ingredients (mentioned in the definition) together and let it flow.
And no, I don't think I've ever directly experienced God. I've experienced what is probably the work of God (the beauty of nature), but while I think that it almost certainly is the creation of a higher being, I can't say that it definitely is.
Having God in your life can make the world more lovely.
And yes, God is a great comfort at times.
However, Ranger, love is not limited to just couples you see together. If it were really love, then it would last for a very very very long time instead of the many make-break arrangements of living. Its not an easy task being in love... for one encounters umpteen situatiuons where one has to sacrifice, adjust, surrender freedom of old bachelorhood, rethink your priorities.... and in the bargain one gets hurt. But if there's the sacrifice, patience, trust and the joy of just having that other person around... then it's love, one which will last enough to make you feel its taste a very long time. And it doesn't even have to be only between couples. What about between friends, between family mambers... its that bond between people thats called love. And to experience it , you have to reach out first to receive love. Its contagious and a chain reaction. Love is what sheilds you from negativity. The more you love... the more elevated your mood.... its not just chemical, its what a person is built upon in totality.
I hope you didn't take that wrong. I just wanted to show you that love's grown into many definitions, mainly because of the mystique that seems to go with it.
To be God, or not to be God; That is the question, for he is the ideal.
And what the hell is the issue? Nothing.
Romance is believing in the capability of human beings to change, to affect their lives. Romance is believing in the potential for happiness, however fleeting, false, or self-deceptive. Happiness is the only irreducible thing.
Ah, yes, the morning mail and another dispatch from Mr. Zodiac. The question is whether to answer it, giving the appearance of dialog, (which, if history repeats, will really be two intersecting monologs), or to ignore another assertion of my incompetence as a human being. It is both gratifying to know he cares, and irritating to see it go on this way, with no more apparent understanding of me than he showed in those year-old diatribes of his.
Heâs very persistent. âWhich would you rather be, Dovina, a child caught in a magicianâs spell, or the magician casting it?â Silly me, Iâve sometimes answered his questions, knowing heâll take my answer off on a tangent.
Itâs sweet, really, the way he keeps on, as if hoping, even after all these months, that Iâll follow him to Arabia on an invitation to Paris.
I imagine him telling some coffee-house crony about me, and the crony saying, âIs she a nut?â and him weighing a stack of my Poemranker comments and poems in his hand, saying, âIâm not sure.â
When you correspond with someone, you begin to form impressions. You wonder whether the impressions are correct. âCertainly not a beauty. Long, pointed nose? Brown beady eyes? No, I think more . . . probing. Pushy.â I imagine his impressions of me running along these lines, rather than the harsh nouns and adjectives he writes to describe me.
No, I donât believe Iâll answer this time.
âI like the adorable footprints you left all around as you were building it,â you say.
I have tried several times to impale you to some substantial pillar to stop you from dancing around what you really mean. I've tried gears with missing teeth, trial attributes of "god," and compliments, all of which you have dodged.
Now I resort to classification with its inevitable angerment. You are a Taoist and your god is Tao. Tao is nameless; if you call it something, it hides. Tao is before concepts, before individual things. And in keeping with where I am saying this,
taoists believe numbers exist by virtue of the universe of numbers - because they are.
Unless you straighten up and say something substantial about this God you claim, I shall be forced to post a poem entitled, "The God of Alchemy."
A long time ago I wrote this down somewhere. "God spoke us into being so that some day we might be gracious enough to return the favor."
All applause.
And boy, what a scene! Chicken stall owners sit with nothing in their stalls, a sunken look on their faces and with absolutely none of their employees with them! They're selling it now for just Rs.5.oo which is an equivalent to roughly 80 cents per kg, I think. Just when we thought it was wrapping up, another outbreak shows up... and yet I long to eat fried chicken!
- Flannery O'Connor
'The world is a dream, you say, and it's lovely, sometimes. Sunset. Clouds. Sky.'
'No. The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?'
-Richard Bach
Log in to add a comment.