Skip to content

LAMBERTVILLE, NJ

May 27, 2013

AND ITS FUTURE IN THE GARDEN STATE

1) YVES MASSARDE (SAHARA, 2005)

His callousness, wanton disregard for the well-being of others-for the value of human life-and his elimination in the film by the CIA/US State Department.

But murder is a most binding business of thematic arguments-of both poles of the relationship Subject-agent and object.

One leads to the other-to the point that logic does not exclude that one is the other, and vice versa.

2) lambert@ldolphin.org

Hides mythical faith as religion in science-and vice versa.

Preaches, therefore, the contradiction of understanding but only to a certain point, after which all is faith and the possibility of closing your eyes and holding tightly to father’s leg-regardless of what is taking place around you.

And a father is there for you to cling to by necessarily seeing yourself as a child, the central flaw of your nature that, because it is actually your reason for needing a father, you cannot afford to right or overcome it-and above all you cannot allow science to do exactly that!

And though you preach science, it is a science itself that must never threaten the servant-master (father-son) relationship you, ultimately, take your identity from.

But because you are never explicit about this, the science and intellectual understanding that is truly patrimony of all of us, is also affected-tainted as well by the child that would see all of us as children like himself.

And the love you say makes you what you are as a follower of Christ is, in this context, clearly a form of inconsideration as self-serving imposition on the rest of society.

And the costs have been devastating for that society from a humanistic, intellectual standpoint.

Science as intellectual inquiry is not yours to tailor to your own subjective needs in detriment to the western intellectual legacy from which it comes; in detriment to all those who potentially benefit from it-which is to say all of us, the human condition itself; and in detriment, also, to the very process of empirical-intellectual inquiry as a mechanism of human understanding.

But that-its clear-is what is not really most important to you.

You should be free, finally, to practice what you preach, but it is paramount that you and what you represent not be allowed to influence or shape the theoretical, intellectual pillars of scientific inquiry-and most especially people’s understanding of these pillars as the basic foundation of responsible, empirical inquiry.

And it is paramount that even the young people of, say, Texas, not be the victims either of your simian imposition of a strategy, simply, of identity-based latently on your triumph as the exclusion-annihilation-of your adversary.

Science should never be at your mercy.

Too many people depend on it!

3) WILSON L.

Was the father of a student of mine, and part of his grandiose mansion-of all his material possessions and spacious comfort was his son himself.

And like the family dog, the son also had to be trained-educated-and a great sums of money were spent also on the son, and he was most sternly chastised when he made mistakes-mistakes in his manners or in one or more of the academic subjects he was always occupied with even after school.

But photos of this 8 year-old boy abounded throughout the house-could be seen in different spaces, in the kitchen and presiding, generally, over everything, as far as the eye could see, so to speak.

And I found myself wondering one day, as I listened to Mr L’s mildly bigoted small talk before a session one afternoon with the boy, whatever this man would do without his son, as everything about the world that I walked into seemed to depend exclusively on this 8 year-old boy.

Everything except the opulence, that is.

Because somebody was making some serious money-and in what way the boy related to exactly this aspect was what insinuated itself in my mind as most troubling.

And I assume-I am sure-there were other realms of humanness and tenderness, perhaps, that as a visitor were beyond me in regards to the bonds between the individuals in the house of L, but it was his time spent with his dog-a Fox Terrier-that the child most enthusiastically spoke of to me, not of anybody else.

And in my mind I named the dog Isaac-and I made it the boy’s brother, for it was the child who was the functional pet as mascot of the house of L.

But there was no real sacrifice, for all was sacrifice itself.

And I loved the boy as best I could in class and as I led him through our grammar-based exchanges as exercises.

And after the session I felt L’s overbearing grip as I shook his hand, as was accustomed upon my leaving.

And I left his stately halls and thought no more, for a time, of the weight Isaac has always borne in human culture.

And I set my thoughts on matters of money.

For it is only with greatest effort that I can tolerate someone like L in any other light.

4) MINUTE 3:19

And surrounded here in apparent material ease and comfort, you have the greatest insolvency of all-that of the phantom him or her self: an inner emptiness that weighs like a stone and brings the greatness of the individual down into a hole of trifling human need of only the most mundane kind-and that leaves the individual trapped in an extrinsic hell of callous insensitivity towards others as a reflection of one’s own lack of tenderness towards the self as the price is right shopper.

And so forever shall your lips remain sealed:

ORANGE

Advertisements

From → NOW

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s