one sentence
two centers
joined at the hip
moon does sun
connect intersect
an elliptical bridge
cars do whiz bye
face each other
not to collide
baby sentences
birth making
first newborn cry
first character
capitalized for
capital crime
ending periods pointless
point death rendered just
sentence punishment
for the crime of lying
judge pronounced jury
sentence sentenced
as if genre had
said it all even
before the fall
spoken cement plastered
cracked driveway pavement
sprout weed seed facts
always assume
never conclude
opens barn doors
the sentence sent
burns hot incense
mystery smoke hints
because to die
on very spots
where period ends
greased for
a fast downhill
roller coaster hi
good to eat
to rise up again
where begin rends
gone before wind
thought was tamed
held time frozen
if periods end
where it begins
sing pathway stones
where sentences
death wish beckon
beat life's strife
subject predicates object
if out of bed quake
flips the head right
where toes wiggle
on railroad track
doing click-clacks
having only
one meaning
to live only once
never to be visited
in the same way on
the same day
spent with
nothing more
to give today
sentence egg cracked
frying pan dropped
today's breakfast news
meaning back magic
sunny side-up
smiles actually stolen
genre the tree grown
ripe forbidden fruit
falling leaf temptation
Fail better
If this realm is emptiness rendered into existence, it shouldn’t be surprising to find it’s nature is flawed, partial and fleeting. Assuming the rendering process compresses emptiness into existence.
Because compression means something gets lost. What if to be a body is to be a world? Making the body world an instance of zipped pure “is.”
So that the body is like a render mechanism for creating its own uniquely encapsulated world. Where nonstop change takes place around an unmoved center of its own existence.
If emptiness “died” in order for existence to be, it’s shape might be expected to form around that central loss. Making loss a hole to house the pivot point for rendered existence to revolve.
If this is why things exist, how much sense does it make to strive for perfection in a world that is inherently established through loss? Since if this world is rendered emptiness, it might not be unreasonable to expect its nature to be impermanent, imperfect, incomplete.
If so, misalignment could be striving for perfection in a flawed world. Because the way things are contextually wouldn’t line-up with how contents fit.
Be like pouring beer in a cereal box trying to drink it. Sort of works.
Is this world incurably dysfunctional because of what it took for it to come into existence? Causing everything to age to its demise. Going funny-farm haywire in the process.
If so, what would be like to bring context and content into less misalignment? By assuming this world is inherently pathological.
Could it uncover the hidden mechanism for why screw-ups happen. Noting if this was a perfect world, there shouldn’t be any imperfections.
While it may not flatter to imagine this world as one flying apart at the seams in order to exist, perhaps digging a little deeper might allow some hidden mileage to unexpectedly surface.
What if it could disable a 10 out 10 yardstick as an absolute measurement for perfection. The one that calls zero a “F”and “A” a 10? With grayscale degrees between.
Replaced by a relative scale between more or less or flawed. Taking the burden of attaining perfection off the table.
Changing the “success” narrative to something like, “Is what’s being said and/or done making things any less worse than what came before?”
Where the action call is to “fail better” on each try. As the less misaligned way to get things done for a better world.
Digging still deeper what if “imperfection” has an unnoticed curious flaw? It only comes out to play when success and failure are opposed on a scale of imperfection verses perfection. As a false dichotomy.
Making a relative scale between more or less imperfect the way to defrang an absolute spectrum. Because a relative dimension gets rid of the false opposition.
Since how could perfection be considered less than perfect on a continuum having two diametrically opposed natures. As that would seem to violate what perfection implicitly is. When perfection is considered a stand-alone criteria for accomplishment.
Suggesting imperfection itself is inherently flawed when opposed to perfection. Opening a door to “fail better” as the best possible way to succeed.
Bull’s eye
What if it was possible to hit the bull’s eye without aiming on the first try? Like a strike in bowling, home run in baseball or contract win.
Not by lucky happenstance. Nailed because another approach was used.
Assume a material world made of compressed emptiness A world built on the loss of an original lossless empty state.
Setting up what it would take for a “bull’s eye” to hit. By wondering what is it about the nature of reality that makes any intended outcome possible.
Because assuming matter was caused by a disruption in the void opens a context to house the question how a dead center hit might be possible. For no other reason than it supposes the loss of pure emptiness as the source of this material world.
Becoming the trigger mechanism needed to aim at any desired outcome. Explaining why the target’s dead center would be the hit point from where its existence revolves.
Pointing back to how anything may have come into existence through loss. Death becomes the heart of existence.
Changing the issue to needing to be centered first to hit the target dead center. Calling attention to parting the grass enough to glimpse it.
Noting the basis for target practice might be the hit emptiness took to bring the target itself into existence. Without which would there be goals to realize?
Could this be what it meant by a “killer shot?” That can “crush” the competition like a spent beer can?
If each body was an instance of emptiness made existence where might aiming take place? Might it be from each design formatted motionless center?
The center that remains the center of a body rendered universe irregardless. Noting as the body moves spatially that center stays put.
Goes along for the ride. As if each center is the key location to unlock each world.
If so, to be a body is to have the contextual wrap around a “dead” center needed to negotiate the world. The bull’s eye found? Even before a shot is fired.
If missed, was what went wrong not being centered? If a direct hit, was what went right being in the heart of matter?
Based on the premise any loss is a form of death. As if emptiness needed to “die” to give birth to existence. So too something must die to remain here.
Giving rise to the killer instinct needed to hit any target dead center. If to kill emptiness is what it took for anything to exist.
Offering up reason why a “bull’s eye” outcome involves a “dead” center hit. Since each things axis turns on its own dead center matter.
If so, to hit a given target without aiming should amount to locating any given body’s pivot point. The one that’s rendering out the very targeted goal.
Suggesting locating the target’s center is found by finding the contextual rendered world’s center. That still point of what matters swirling around it.
If death is the point of conception at the apex of every creation. Making a bull’s eye hit possible once the door at the center of what’s being rendering is entered.