gertrude grandmothr

Mercury in retrograde intersects with may 11, may 11 being a birthday may 11 being my birthday, not any day but the day I was born. the day may 11 that mercury intersects with jupiter and the day ending the mercury in rtrograde that is on my birthday.
This is not to say much but of the period in question is that one ending the one of Aries so sto speak starting. that is not a abelief system that is just what is happeningso it is only a certain period ending a certain seven year period ending, the end of a certain seven year period, a seven year period in people's lives in everyon's life, very conveently simple sake of simple measurement, a seimple say of convenietnly ending on my birthdday, so that is what iit is in the endinf of seven years. From beeginning seven years ago when I began begin 16, an began being me my independent person to a new being, as before being here in a car, and parents giveng keys, so Ibegin now getting keys and I'm driving no parents at the sid alson.
I am simply stating the state of things in ending a period of seven years, so what is astroloogy but a matter of things happening reatedly. so we heed no attention to it without big measuring sticks, we measure with sticks from here to here but the big things moving and we try to measure, but only just measure, and give no laws from the measuring and so there is no strict stick in the strict sense, a standard stick for seeing, a blind way of seeing forward. because the plaents are in earnest, they move like they do because they intend that movemnt. they do what they mean to say by doing it, and they don't just say it but do it by their revolving.

and if it is to be so with their revolving they do it without a second thought or sayin that that is what they are intending. they do not intend to be saying things they revolve around their movment and their intention with the the movement. they are going about their center and they are repeating their line up in a way seen from 7 years, and are not in the same sense as they wree seven years ago. so their intention is now in a new seven year cycel, they do not do what is done for the past seven years.
they are doing the thing a revolving around a center and they are going around this center with the wholeness of their going around. they are their own centers by defining a place and a centter to go around.
i am saying that there is a seven year merucrial stance that is going around a center, and the body of the writer is thinking from the center of his experience. he has his own center that he is revolving around and going form and and looking at the seven years that are ending that are ending on day that are ending on a day that is his birthday, and so the birthday is coming and he is at the center of the 23 year cycle because the thing comes back every year. it is simple mathematics that we are in the same place, but not the same place as we come around every year, and we end up in the place the we didn't begin from. but we are marking and we are making a center from this marking so we must look towards other markings and just make the things for ourselves, and we must make them to be as they are actually not as we meant them to be, because they are just simple revolutions, and they are coming back again with where they began. they are coming back with where they began, and they are not again in the place where they began because they are coming back, and they are not in the place they are where they began. they began in that place and are coming back to it, so they are not coming back to where they began, they are coming back to where they were. that was where they began so they must be where they are now, not simply where they thought they to be where they were.
messing around, is funny enough, but i just want to put things as they are, and this is how they are, as they are ending on a seven year cycle. the cycle isn't a repeating but it is a new cycle, so it is the end of a cycle that makes for the beginning of a new cycle. we are going circular with noticing the things that repeat themselves, but these things are not things athat are repeating themselves, they are things that are here right now, and are starting the new things and are not repeating going back to where they began, not going back to where they began but coming to a new and a different position that makes itself noticed because it is the end of one thing, leading to another thing. the repeating has happened 23 times for him and so he has come back to be at this place 23 other times and for a certain time, certain things were repeating happening, going through one thing repeatedlty in a certain way. but now as that is ending he is coming to notice, he is seeing that at the end of the 23 cycles he is ending with the seven year cycle of things going around a certain center in a certain way.

and so im looking at the internet and i'm coming up with the cycles and seeing the cycles and noting the cycles and stein talks about the cycles assigned for us in the cycles we have read assigned for us, in our reading assigned for us and she talks about things only going about 100 years or so, and so we have a new perspective on what is going on. it drives certain people to craziness but there must be an ability to break out of just the looking, because when we are noticing the cycles, we are doing just that, we are noticing the cycles and they are happening and we are trying to measure them a little bit more, but they are just happening just fine without our measuring, and what will stop them from doing that cycling, because there won't be any stopping them, we will only noticie the cycling and look at our own cycling and how these are two cycles and they are both going at the same revolving time, we will notice how they are both in the same revolving cycling, or maybe just outward and back inwards and they are okay. maybe when we are going back at the end of a big cycle we are just repeating how our recycling goes in reverse. and they are a thing that goes in forwards and backwards once in a while but they are doing the simple small cyclings over and over again while we just get ready to go into the recycling backwards.
gertrude stein is talking about a specific thing that is happening to everyone, it is a specific thing that is not happening to everyone. she is talking about a thing that is happening to everyone, but the noticing is taking place without anyone and the way she is corrective about the thing that is happening to everyone is that it is not specifically happening to everyone. she is not mentioning that it is happening to everyone, she is mentioning that it is a specific thing that is happening every 100 years, or so, and that it isn't specific and that it is happening to anyone's specifically. she is talking about the specific grandmother that it is happening to, and that her grandmother is is happening in 1932, and she is meditating on 1932, and she is talking about the grandmother just a year later, in 1933, when she is talking about about it coming to be a thing that happens every 100 years. and she is talking about a thing that happens to be every 100 years, and that a grandmother is to have a grandson and the thing is that when they are happening again at 100 years, it is because there is a grandmother to a grandson. there is not a grandfather a grandson, there is a grandmother to a grandson, and there is not a grandson to stein. she is not in having a grandson, there is no 100 year difference to her having a grandson, she is not having a grandson. there is a grandson that is without having a grandson, at 100 years or so, and they are without having a grandson. there is a grandson that is without having a grandfather, and there is a grandson that is having a grandmother. there is a grandson that is without having a grandmother, and there is Stein without having a grandson or a granddaughter and a grandson. there is a grandfather that is not a grandfather because he is having a grandson that does not have a grandfather. there is a grandson that is having a grandmother, and there is Stein that is not having a grandson that is without having a grandmother. Stein is mentioning that there is a 100 years that are coming back into place of being 100 years later, and that in being 100 years later that there is a grandson to a grandmother, and stein does not have the grandson to have a grandmother.
Please note that this is a thing that could be happening to anyone, and it is a thing that is happening to anyone, and they are seeing it when they are seeing it, it is not because they are measuring it in a strict sense, but they are observing it and they are observing it happening, which is to say that they are measuring it happening. they are not the things that are happening to them, they are the things that are happening that they are observing, and they are things that could be happening to anybody, but they are not happening to anybody. they are happening. they are just happening. they are things that are just happening and there is anybody that is observing them, and they are things that are thought to be happening to them. they are the things that are just happening and that they are observing them means they are happening. they are things that are happening to them, but they are observing them not happen to them. the things happening are okay that they are not happening to anybody, but that they are happening that the things observing are okay that the things happening are not things happening to them.
Mercury retrogrades have a cycle** in which the retrogrades have an exactness of covering the same signs, the same degrees and approximately on the same calendar days. This exactness is seldom thought about Mercury retrograde, with the seemingly chaotic and confusing situations we experience during the retrogrades. The exact Mercury retrogrades we will experience in 2011 were the exact same signs, same degrees and approximately the same calendar days of 1932. This cycle** is seldom talked about in the astrology world, but is the cause of major course corrections for humanity. We can look back at history of 1932 to see the impact of Mercury retrogrades covering the same time frames, the same signs and the same degrees. We are coming to an important time as was experienced in 1932. For instance, the President of the U.S. in 1932 was Herbert Hoover, who had a birthday of August 10th, and the U.S. President in 2011 is Barack Obama, born August 4th, both having Sun in Leo. Few people are old enough to recount the transition of that time, but it becomes history repeating itself to give us a chance to grow as humanity, as a society and to make a difference. The Planet of Mars follows this same cycle and the sequence of Mars combining with Mercury's influence of ideas and attitudes and Mars brings these ideas and attitudes into action. The phrase "thoughts become things" certainly brings home the combined energy of these two planetary connections.

tangent

You wake in the state. the state gives you a start. your start to see a clearness. your shower clears out space. your space is in your state. the state is disarray. and disarray is okay.
And useless is the pondering.
And I reverted back to the possible breakdown again last night, but managed to turn it into some cinematic beauty. The dancers on the screen seemed to present themselves as some emulation of my perceived life. A projection of my life was being lived out right there in front of me on screen. Now he throes his pen, melodrama. They chase and falter, and caress without restraint. What they're doing could've, could be, could be me. And I don't know how but it was how my mind raced in those few short seconds.
What this pertains to is more like a self-examination, a self-checkup tumorous tumultuous mind cancer. but the fats are straight. I am here with a conscious of my own to choose what I wish, and make myself out of those choices. Among the choices I can make are the numerous ways in which I can perceive a situation. And just as much, I can choose the various and all equally possible ways I can think and feel about a situation. Evolved human forms, is that possible? Really I think I just want to create the circumstances that would make that scenario a possibility.
It isn't about my knowledge agains yours, but how we choose to give and receive that knowledge and perspective. Really, the knowledge, wisdom, is just fluff. But what we choose to do with those inputs once they're received is imperative. We are otherwise lost without an ability to process. Valid yet contracting ideas can exist in tandem, or simultaneously. There cannot be hostility on the receiving or giving end.
But the terms will have to be explained in a manner that the listener may follow along. Language must be shared between the two opposing ideas. This also means that the ideas may openly borrow the vernacular of the other.
This, I believe, is what leads to cohesion. Not agreement in content and steadfast allegiance to dogmas we don't understand, but rather a constant flow between the two opposites. A discharging lightning bolt attempts to equalize polar opposites, without actually changing either of them. The flow of energy is what quells the storm.

how is it you do?

"Så prøver vi."

people seem to think that asking the question, "and, uh, yaaa, so like, what are you trying to do with this," will be able to further and aide a work. I think in reality it works just the opposite, and it signals a facet of laziness in the viewer. that thinking needs to be eliminated, or at least questioned and prodded.

and so we try. i can see nothing wrong with this attempt, and view, so long as it holds true when asked. while sitting around and discussing, we need to accept rejection, accept failure somewhat, but never, no never, accept ambivalence and hiding in neutrality. we must ask, "so what is it you´re trying with this work. what you´re trying out" stepping back in that way.

and when people can be confronted with what they actually have done and maybe see its affects, rather than jump to conclusions, and try to set fast what we should see in a work. life is unpredictable, art will reflect that.

I have been in another country for some time.

Of course you know I've been away, doing something. I've been resetting to zero in some ways, finding out what I deem valuable, and what I can leave at the wayside. It's been refreshing. consoling in some ways, and quite remarkable.

I've written quite a bit while I've been here, none of which I've put up for no reason, other than lack of access. I've done some poems that are to help me in learning Danish again, forming a straddling line between that and English, also illustrating frustration with the prospect of having to learn in the first place. here is one.

gooook gook gook
gik
gik uummm eeeat um up up ..

galleee gee gook my gwamma,

yoo just goook look it all up it gik it in
the ældre meanings menneske
the people reading eaach other
to gik is to take
to take is to look

but only if you wwheeely wannaaa
my mormor menska
wiw bliw together
vi blive sammen
begynder nu så det er så let
hvis vi kan lige xplore ohh day

ohh day its wi work
ohh dag
wishout my mormors tunga
vi habba a ny langu nu

dag ah tilla hjælpe mig
soo swearty svært
my jeg's git så sweeaty
varmt me up up

dag ah one poema til hjælpe mig
så duh!
så du kan læse day
gik me offa mit leash
nu så du hava lasso. gik my

en day så do kan lasso it iinde
day fo' det sprog

leah mole
hendes me søster
she men sammen med my
lige mod så kan do sov

når if its rigtige when you soven
you so can let me, så let to see
sige day
to look is to høre
når do see day?
kan you listen til my to
nej tre timers.
three timer

er do two
do du has to?
itsa sprog, tilla lære,
hvis you kare.
no, når da baby

hen had to, men
hen dropped den
man droppa sprog
mom droppa sprog
so drenge droppe
eller aldrig picka up

vi ka sige day helt day
whatsa missin vi see det
ah day split til to
er my split i two?
er vi, er du?
det er ikke mig,
nej det air day

nej, days a two timer
its min frustration
from ikke læred day
jeg know day er ikky
kommer nu
til tænke on om day
its sjov til sige day

vi håber en show now
day hvad vi have.
alle what vi habe nu
no, nej ikke noget til bay
no, left noggin in det bay
nej, jeg er ikke nogen
no, one det er my.

This here's a show.

I'm doing a show with a young man.

a young man I haven't seen the likes of since I was a young man myself.

We all become old men eventually.

its all about....

job creation

Kant’s Universal Law and Freedom

Freedom today is a term that many take for granted, and the implications that this has go far beyond our ability to gauge our own actions' validity in relation to greater society. We have a freedom to want (desire), a freedom to do, a freedom pursue our own goals, but how we realize these freedoms and conceive of them in the first place is dictated by forces outside of ourselves. Primarily we think of laws that put into action a supposed limit on these freedoms, but they have come to be expected and our conception of freedom is structured around them. This is a changing process that is altered by the passage of time, by new social relations among humans and our interpretation of these social relations, at least the ones that we are able to see, as undoubtedly there will always be relations that go by undetected or misconstrued by dominating mindsets of the moment.
When looking at this view of freedom, it is important to consider all the factors that may affect our view and analysis of it. If look at the will of the individual itself, it is what the individual wants that seems to dictate what his freedom should inherently be, but it is impossible to look at individuals isolated, as individuals are social beings. We can also examine the will of the State that the individuals exist within, and how this will and freedom of will serves the purposes and freedoms of the individuals residing within. It is individuals within society that we must examine in order to get towards an idea of freedom that is to serve any purpose, as it is ultimately the society that dictates what individuals' movement within the society will be. These are all things that have been considered by Immanuel Kant. Kant's investigations of the individual within society bring up the issues of universal law, morality, and equality all of which are inherently linked to freedom.
Firstly, when looking at the will of the individual in relation to freedom, it is necessary to examine his impulses and his capriciousness and how they relate to his supposed freedom. Would it not be reasonable for freedom to be defined as doing most anything that you want, any whim or fleeting desire? Even going so far as to say that you have the freedom to any activity that is of detriment to yourself? This idea of freedom has its shortcomings when the implications of the actions are examined more closely, however. The individual who wishes to follow through on every whim and desire undoubtedly looks back at himself in past events, and on particular occasions, wishes there had a second chance in order to truly redeem himself and go against the immediate impulses, as the consequences of the actions have come back in a form of regret; the consumer becoming dissatisfied with a purchase and experiencing "buyer's remorse." The true path of "good" is certainly recognized universally, but it is an individual's ability to differentiate between the immediate benefits of going against this true "good", and the projected advantages of doing what they would hope all others would do, that truly muddles the idea of a freedom. According to Kant, "There is no one... who, when presented with examples of honesty of purpose, of steadfastness in following good maxims, and of sympathy and general benevolence... does not wish that he might also possess these qualities. Yet he cannot attain these in himself only because of his inclinations and impulses; but at the same time he wishes to be free from such inclinations which are a burden to him." (55) So freedom no longer becomes an ability to go off any whim and fancy, but to recognize the truly moral strings of decisions, and to strive towards a lifestyle that may benefit him in the long run, as well as those others benefiting from his decisions. Freedom is not simply an ability to decide between choices, but it is an ability to become an individual whose decisions are already made for him (through internal means), the deliberations between right and wrong are non-existent. Truly it is not a static process, but a linear one, encompassing time and space.
Now, how does a society make this a universally understood task, not just the undertaking of a few like-minded "noble" individuals? First, there must be an elimination of the belief that it is a noble cause to pursue; rather it is a necessary task, pursuable by everyone, a common pursuit. The understanding of the golden rule is really the most basic understanding of this idea, "treat others as you would have them treat yourself." The metaphysics of this equation, however, must be investigated in order for the understanding to go beyond that of simple kindergarten direction. Kant specifically targets this concept in outlining a "universal law". Many consider the laws that we legislate and the standards that we form and practice are what eventually form our consciousness and moral compass, when it is the reverse process that should be true; it should be our understanding of what is right and beneficial for us and others that should be the cause for legislation through our governing bodies. It is then that only universal will can be formed into law.
In the modern society with its relations to universal law, I think of the idea of competition, stemming from that competition between manufacturers all the way down to the workers and every other avenue of life, and its contradictions to the concept of universal will. In a society of competition, those competing are looking out for what is best for their own self, and in fact, actually look to be better than those with whom they are competing. When this mindset is willed universally, it runs into its own contradictions - if you will your own company, your own self to be better than all others, you also must be able to wish all others to be better than yourself. It becomes a game of a cat chasing its own tale, and it is much the same as the example Kant outlines, in that willing a lie to become universal law it becomes impossible to differentiate between what is true and a lie, and your lying loses its original intention. You can no longer temporarily benefit from the lie just the same as no one else can benefit from you, and promises can no longer be made, thus the maxim to will a lie into universal law destroys itself. (Kant, 15) It is this contradiction, I believe, that is the most graspable for the modern mind to realize all the contradictions that underlie our modern society.
This particular conception of competition must be abandoned in order to overcome these contradictions, and freedom must take on the meaning of betterment of the self, not in comparison to those surrounding individuals. For when the advancement of a man's qualities becomes for his own being, and is thus in turn willed universally, its benefits become immediately apparent. The individual can say to those around him, "I will work on improving my own being if you are to do the same." It will also become universally apparent to help one another in attaining this betterment, for when asked for help, the universal law would be to help this other person, just as this would be what one would want for himself, assistance in improving. The betterment of society is then a cohesive communal undertaking, rather than bursts of improvements made when one breakthrough overreaches another.
This also helps to form cohesion between the will of the individual and the will of the State. When the universal will becomes that of the betterment of people, a State’s will that follows the same agenda will intrinsically foster individuals that work towards an improvement of their selves and their state. People will obtain equality in the State’s eyes and in the eyes of their peers.


-Work Cited-
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Third Edition. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 1993. Print.