love can never reach the untouchable

these memories unfold so quickly
and always go unnoticed
like a blossoming lotus
merely crowded by insects, maintaining
some intimate balance

we are not aware of at the present
how things can be forgotten
even when exuding rotten stench
can represent the many ways a thing can die
and never be wanted again

it's true that we are famished
poisoned by this nectar,
and haunted by the spectre
which never truly vanished,
but only changed in form

the scarlet worm you may have stepped on
and shall never recollect
may be the reason why the earth is so shallow
and why it can reflect
a certain sense of idiocy, in following

these misguided souls through harrowing,
rushing to disconnect
self interest and why heads can be so hollow
without meaning disrespect,
indeed they may have fallen prey to the sole

I wrote this a few weeks ago; forgot to realise it belongs here. These are highly opinionated thoughts, many assertions lacking evidence, so beware.
____

What is questioning? Mere sounds?
Like answering, the same things?
If everything, along with time, rewound
and prolonged the rhyme of sounds
what would become of now?
____

Drugs can't abuse society if used responsibly.

My argument is that it is unnecessary to regulate suicide. If mass deaths occur due to the legalisation of drugs, it will most likely change society's perception of drugs in such a way that deaths would significantly drop, not by government regulation, but by individual's decisions.

In the long run, the death rate would most likely vary on other factors, such as the condition of the world economy.

It needs to be accepted that there are people in this world who are a danger to themselves and they should exercise the right to end that danger in any way, as it would be beneficial to society.

People who commit suicide should not attempt to be saved, even by family members. This fundamental principle should be understood.

In the case where an individual under the influence is responsible for an accident, it is obvious that if alcohol, a drug which could SEVERELY impair motor skills, can be legal, any other drug can.

What is important is to EDUCATE people about drugs and their effects instead of LYING to them and SCARING them into believing FALSEHOODS. INFORMED people make GOOD decisions. INFORMED parents make RESPONSIBLE children.

1st Ponderances on Modeling Brain Function

Again, these thoughts should not be taken seriously.
___

Intro

How would one begin to simulate brain function?
First, one would need to have an understanding of the anatomical complexity of the nervous system. Historically there have been many approaches to modeling brain function, so I figure why not take a shot with some of my own ideas?

Off the top of my head I can think of two predictable ways to begin modeling brain function.

Immediately I think of abstracting the neuron to the form of an electrical circuit. However, I cannot accept this because I suspect that classical electromagnetic theory is (and I hope I can say that without expecting criticism)rather outdated to be describing the central nervous system.

The question of multiparticle and multimolecular systems is a matter of QED. This paper will ultimately delve into the simulation of quantum systems using real Hilbert spaces and subsequent applications to biological systems.

But first I want to play with language and invent a few words...

Boundary Conditions

How is the brainstate of a person throughout their life determined?
One would first have to set the boundary conditions of 'brainstate', 'person', 'life' and 'determined'.
The boundary conditions of 'brainstate' are embedded within those of 'person', and 'person' within those of 'life'.

The boundary conditions of life itself, the brodest of all relevant categories, give hints as to the methodology behind determining boundary conditions in general. However, let us directly address the boundary conditions of 'brainstate' first; these are the physical conditions necessary for a 'brainstate' to exist, i.e. a specific range of temperatures, among many other conditions, which hopefully will later on be generalized accurately.
For now, a 'brainstate' is exists only within a range of energy states.

The boundary conditions of 'determined' are past perfect of 'to determine', which is strictly within the boundary conditions of anything that determines i.e. thinking beings, the best example: people.

To determine the boundary conditions of 'determining', a person must determine the brainstate of a person determining...TBC.

Free Will, Determinism

Notice that reasons are explanations WHY someone would make a choice, NOT the choices themselves. Someone cannot consider reasons until they choose what they're considering reasons for. The reality is that we make decisions until after we consider a set of reasons WHY we would make a certain decision we have told ourselves to make PRIOR to considering the set of reasons WHY.

^^^That process in itself IS a deterministic process. Find me a human being who makes decisions otherwise. (Obviously there exists one exception where one does not even consider WHY and impulsively acts upon a decision.)

Dated Beliefs

Success is about happiness. Happiness is about love. Love is about courage. Courage is about passion. Passion is about Will.

Will is subject to self. Self is subject to life. Life is subject to Nature. Nature is subject to nothing.

Nature is the source of success, happiness, love, courage, passion, will, and self.

To succeed I must be happy and to be happy I must succeed.
To be happy I must love and to love I must be happy.
To be loved I must love and to love I must be brave.
To be brave I must have passion and to be passionate I must love.
To be passionate I must will myself to be so, but to will myself I must first be.
To be I must live and if I must live, I must live in peace.
To live in peace we must all protect Nature as if we loved her.

To live in peace there cannot be any governments, police, prisons, criminals, war, weapons, soldiers, or the existence of any society which condones the use of violence by any means or ends.
To achieve this, humans must learn to understand each other under any and every circumstance.
When humans truly understand each other, they can trust and love one another.
Even when humans are highly dissimilar in their preferences, they can know how to respect and be good to each other.

I think that there is a way to help humans understand each other.
The solution is to help humans understand each other at a faster rate.
This rate can be measured experimentally.

I believe that to help humans understand each other at a faster rate they must speak a common language. That is not to say that all humans should know only one language. Humans are capable of learning and using language fluently.

I don't believe it's necessary to create a new global language in order for humans to better understand each other, rather, I believe it's necessary to unite humanity under one common method. Historically, people who have thought this have often failed in their attempts. The fact is, they failed because they were wrong in their methods. Presently, no one has yet proposed the right method. I think this is related to the structure of language, the psychology of people, and the fundamental principles which govern these.

Historically, knowledge of fundamental principles has increased our understanding of Nature. This knowledge has been applied to many practical ventures, which have affected Earth both positively and negatively. Most think it is unlikely that humans will ever understand Nature completely. I cannot agree or disagree with this belief because no one can explain why it is true with absolute certainty. What is true, however, is that for as long as humans exist, humans will be able to understand Nature.
What is likely is that over time, Homo sapiens sapiens will evolve into another species. This will only be possible if Homo sapiens sapiens does not become extinct.

The extinction of Homo sapiens sapiens may be caused by a number of events.
One inevitable cause that is not an event is entropy. (Entropy is related to fundamental principles)
Most inevitable of all are unpredictable cosmic events. (Attesting to the limits of our knowledge)
Another inevitable event is related to the age of the Sun. (Though let it be noted that even an event such as the sun expanding in size will not necessarily lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens sapiens)
Next, there are many events which are not inevitable, a war, for example. Events which may lead to human extinction and which are within the grasp of human power can be avoided using knowledge of fundamental principles. I believe that if each individual chose to accept knowledge of fundamental principles as truth, all individuals will be able to cooperate most effectively to most efficiently produce practical solutions to real problems. Most believe it is impossible for every individual to accept this knowledge as truth, arguing that most common people are not able to understand this knowledge. I believe the latter argument is true, but it does not necessarily imply that achieving the former is impossible.

I believe it is possible to convince people of fundamental principles without the use of jargon or mathematics. A new generation of scientists interested in educating common people about fundamental principles has emerged in the recent years. Though many valuable attempts have had their impact, people exposed to this knowledge often appreciate the facts only for the moment without actually applying their new knowledge to life. Since entropy is inevitable and memory is fallible, people will often forget the valuable lessons they learn and continue valuing their own knowledge base in favor. I believe this is a psychological phenomenon which can be studied. Furthermore, I believe this exact phenomenon is the psychological cause of ignorance. Would it be rash to label ignorance as the cause of misunderstanding between people? If not, it should also be acceptable to label ignorance as a major obstacle if understanding between all people is the goal. I believe that the removal of ignorance from human behavior is necessary to achieve understanding and peace. Furthermore, I believe that it is possible to remove ignorance from human behavior by addressing its cause. To address the cause, it must first be categorized.

I postulate that the cause of ignorance, in any situation, is attributed to a pattern of neurological events.
This pattern of events should be consistent in every instance of ignorance and can be measured experimentally. Furthermore, I postulate that it is possible to temporarily remove ignorance from an individual's behavior by some factor. This would be made possible by means of some educational method which is non-marginalizing, simple, and easy to teach and understand. The nature of this method will allow it to be translated into many languages, and if true to its nature, will over time effectively remove ignorance from human behavior, engendering peace and understanding.

Old and Highly Underdeveloped Thoughts on Language

This by no means should be taken seriously. It has been posted to facilitate comparison of ideas and future editing.
___

Today I invested a few hours of work into an old and new theory.
My initial intention was to "Give everyone the same power of understanding".
By what means?
My first guess was a human language framework (HLF) which can be taught to people. This framework unifies all human intuition in three language realms: common language, computer language and mathematical language.
I began to work based on this intention, but found that:
You can classify experience by examining the components of sensory experience. Human sensory experience (HSE) has 5 components. These are sight, smell, taste, touch and sound.
In life, we don’t actually compute what a sensory experience will be like AND THEN experience it. Instead, we imagine what that experience will be like before experiencing it. Based upon whatever language we use to conceptualise and subsequently analyse this future sensory experience, we determine whether or not we will allow ourselves to experience this future sensory experience.
From this perspective, I seek to create a language in which the conceptualisation and analysis of any future sensory experience is greatly facilitated, and moreover, greatly aided.
A sensory experience, like “Physics class”, is expressed MOST ACCURATELY as a set of physical parameters computed over a given time interval,
for example:
“My physics class is in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M.”, really: “My physics class is in (place) over (time interval)”
NOTE: (Notice how “every Tuesday and Thursday” doesn’t matter. The fact is that “physics class” takes place somewhere for a certain amount of time.)’
This may leave you thinking: “Well, all I know about Jorge’s physics class is where it takes place and for how long…what I really want to know is what’s ACTUALLY HAPPENNING in Jorge’s physic s class IF I WERE IN IT.”
If, by chance, this is what you really want to know, then you’re in trouble. Thankfully, I am attempting to create a language to aid you in this time of need. Let us continue; now introducing the concepts of quality, quantity, case and event.
There exists a quantitative explanation for every physical case.
Every physical case is a set of physical parameters computed for a given time interval.
Hence, the quantitative explanation for a physical case can be expressed as Pt{ } = a set of physical parameters computed for a given time interval.
Further, there exists a qualitative explanation for every physical case WHICH AVOIDS THE MATHEMATICAL RIGOR OF DEFINING AND COMPUTING PARAMETER VALUES FOR Pt{ }.
For argument, we ask:
“Pt{ } = Physics class?”
The answer to this question, intuitively, will be the space between the brackets of Pt{ }.
Immediately we notice Pt{ } has empty arguments. In other words, we are lacking a set of variables to insert between the brackets of Pt{ }. To determine which set of variables will correctly answer the question, we need to understand the notation Pt{ }.
In Pt{ }, t simply denotes that Pt{ } must be computed over a given time interval.
For argument, we ask:
“What is Pt{ }? = What is physics class?”
1) I argue:
Physical parameterization of “physics class” will result in a quantitative explanation of “physics class”. Furthermore, this parameterization gives us a VERY ACCURATE set of event probabilities IN THE CONTEXT OF “PHYSICS CLASS”. Let us attempt to qualitatively express knowledge about said context by saying: “Physics class lasts 2 hours.”
2) I argue:
Pt{“Physics class”} = P2{ }PHYSICS CLASS
Let us now reintroduce the concept of space which, inevitably, is embedded within the physical parameters of “physics class”.
3) I argue:
“Physics class” = P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS
Now I can say:
“P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS is the symbolic expression of a set of physical parameters with arguments {x,y,z} computed over a time interval of 2 hours.”
There is still an intuitive disconnect in the argument:
P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS = “physics class”.
This is because we have not computed values for x, y and z.
The disconnect persists even given an arbitrary set of quantitative values:
P2{0,0,0 }PHYSICS CLASS = “physics class”.
However, from my first argument, we recall that a physical parameterization of “physics class” (which is essentially what we’ve done in expressing “physics class” symbolically) gives us:
“A VERY ACCURATE set of event probabilities IN THE CONTEXT OF “PHYSICS CLASS””
As such, I can say:
P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS = “A VERY ACCURATE set of event probabilities IN THE CONTEXT OF ‘PHYSICS CLASS’”.
By doing this, I am relating the set P2{x,y,z} PHYSICS CLASS with a set of event probabilities, which I will call E{%}. E{%} is a symbolic expression of the probability of every possible event. Abstractly speaking, it is the most powerful set.
Really, E{%} on its own says “the probability of any possible event happening exists”
Now consider:
If the probability of any possible event happening does not exist, then no possible events exist,meaning no events exist. The fact is: events exist. Further, an event can be qualitatively expressed as: “anything that happens”. As we know, for anything to happen it must be given a place and time for it to happen.
4) I argue:
If E{%} = “the probability of any possible event happening exists”
And “event” = “anything that happens”
Then E{%} = “the probability of any possible ‘anything that happens’ happening exists”
This, of course, is messy and nonsensical. Instead,
E{%} = ”the probability of any event happening”
I hope we agree. Moving on.
We know that the probability of any event happening exists. But what do we know about the probability of any event not happening? There must exist a relationship between the probability of any event happening and any event not happening.
The probability of any event happening
may or may not be dependent upon
The probability of any event not happening.
For my brain’s sake, let us treat any event as a physical case (we know this can be done, since events exist in the same spacetime as physical cases, i.e. The Universe):
The probability of a physical case happening
May or may not be dependent upon
The probability of a physical case not happening.
Let us now reintroduce the physical case that is “physics class”:
The probability of “physics class” happening
May or may not be dependent upon
The probability of “physics class” not happening.
Immediately we see that “The probability of ‘physics class’ happening” is a completely trivial expression. Really, the probability of “physics class” happening depends on how we define “physics class”. For example, if we define “physics class” to be any class in which physics is taught, then “physics class” is happening across world at all times. On the contrary, though likewise, if we define “physics class” to be my “physics class”, then “physics class” is “in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M”. Suddenly, it all starts to make sense, but to feel good about claiming that this is all starting to make sense, let me ask some questions:
P2{x,y,z }PHYSICS CLASS = “in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M”?
We know from arithmetic and dimensional analysis that 10:30 A.M. (minus) 8:30 A.M. = 2
Also, by the same principle of argument (2):
P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS = P2{“Physics class”}
5) I argue:
{x,y,z} = {“Physics class”}
NOTE:(But how to convince you?)
Well,
P2{“Physics class”} = “Physics class happening for two hours”
{“Physics class”} = “Physics class happening” = {x,y,z}
NOTE:(What we notice is that solutions to the set of arguments {x,y,z} result in quantitative explanations of what is happening , but what we want is a single qualitative explanation).
Let us try using E{%}, the most powerful set in our language to aid us in this conundrum:
E{%} = “the probability of any event happening”
but furthermore,
the probability of any event happening
may or may not be dependent upon
the probability of any event not happening.
--
E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = “the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening”.
but furthermore,
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
may or may not be dependent upon
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS not happening.
Since P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS = “in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M” for a set of arguments {x,y,z}, we can intuitively determine that:
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
IS NOT dependent upon
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS not happening,
and thus
the probability of P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
or
E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%}
Will always equal 1; hence:
E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = 1
If
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS happening
IS NOT dependent upon
the probability of event P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS not happening.
What we have arrived at an expression :
“E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = 1” iff “not E{ P2{x,y,z}PHYSICS CLASS%} = 0”
Or, more generally:
“E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1” iff “not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0” ,
Hence:
“E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0” iff “not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1” ? ,
And thus:
“E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1”
Now, let us revisit argument 5), which brought us here:
If
{x,y,z} = {“Physics class”}
Then
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 1.
Let us translate this into English:
“The probability of event ‘physics class’ happening (+) the probability of event “physics class” not happening (=) 1”
This actually makes sense because it is equivalent to saying:
“The probability of event ‘physics class’ happening (+) the probability of event “physics class” not happening (=) ‘physics class’ happens”
If ‘physics class’ does not happen, then:
“The probability of event ‘physics class’ happening (+) the probability of event “physics class” not happening (=) 0”
And thus:
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 0.
But what does it mean for ‘physics class’ to not happen?
It would mean that:
“ My physics class (which) is in the New Physics Building every Tuesday and Thursday from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M.”
Does not happen. This is obviously not the case because we’ve already determined that
“E{Pt{x,y,z}%}” IS NOT dependent upon “not E{Pt{x,y,z}%}”. However, we must show that both these expressions are true:
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 1 = “Physics class” happens
E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} + not E{ P2{“Physics class”}%} = 0 = “Physics class” does not happen
Back to physical parameters:
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1 = {x,y,z} happens
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0 = {x,y,z} does not happen
BUT I INSIST
WHAT IS {x,y,z} WITH RESPECT TO {“Physics class”}?
THIS IS THE TRICK:
TREAT “Physics class” as an event
But
TREAT {“Physics class”} as an object
How does this make sense?
Events happen in real life.
Hence: Events are a function of time
Objects exist in real life, but also exist abstractly.
Hence: Objects are not necessarily functions of time.
By distinguishing “Physics class” from {“Physics class”}, we finally have the power to define parameters for {x,y,z}.
NOTE: (Just for fun, consider event “x, y, z”…what does this mean to you? Absolutely nothing, right?)
We now treat the set of arguments {x,y,z} as an object {x,y,z} in Euclidean space.
The beautiful, beautiful thing about all this is that since object {x,y,z} exists in Euclidean space,
we can treat object {x,y,z} as a vector .
In our new, abstract realm of objects, objects move with respect to each other according to geometric and trigonometric principles (because this is easy for everyone to visualise).
For argument (and also, for thought experiment, and incidentally, for fun):
Consider:
Giraffe<0,0,0>
This is a giraffe with its centre of mass at point (0,0,0) in 3D space. Realise that this fully 3D giraffe is yours to keep. Think deeply. Visualise this giraffe. View it from as many angles as you please. Zoom in and out. (Sadly, the probability that you know what a giraffe looks like from every angle is extremely low…thereby limiting your viewing capabilities…but we will return to this temporary inconvenience later).
As you visualise your giraffe, remember that:
3 lines, all perpendicular to each other and pointing in different directions, intersect at point (0,0,0), the giraffe’s centre of mass.
The fact that we know this giraffe’s centre of mass and where it is in 3D space means that, for all practical purposes, we can treat this giraffe as a point in space.
Hence, this giraffe can be “put” anywhere in 3D space by giving it random arguments
So really, Giraffe<0,0,0> is just Giraffe at point (0,0,0).
Now consider the following:
You have a lapse in memory and totally forget about Giraffe. (Bad, bad person)
Hopefully, you have not forgotten the concept of 3D space itself.
Thankfully you haven’t.
Think of yourself as an object in 3D space. As an object you have no body, but you definitely have a mind. Sadly, your mind as an object in an empty 3D space is limited to “where you can ‘put’ yourself”.
I hope this is where this all ties in:
Your experience as an object is not sensory experience.
As an object in empty 3D space, you can only ‘see’ everything around you, which happens to be the same because your 3D space is empty.
The only reason I am personifying this point-like object in empty 3D as you is to assert that
You can experience ANYTHING in this abstract realm.
But this experience will not be sensory because in this abstract realm you are not human. What makes you human is your ability to see, smell, touch, taste and hear. To a human, experience which is not sensory is boring if even understandable.
Instead of imagining Giraffe, imagine Yourself in the same way you imagined that giraffe.
The problem is evident: what you are imagining is not you.
Notice we are merely visualising objects.
We are not smelling them.
If you’ve already started “moving” objects, then you’re on the right track.
In this abstract realm, we can move objects with respect to each other according to basic geometric and trigonometric principles.
But in a system (realm) of many objects , what happens when objects touch as you’re moving them??????
We now need to define physical parameters!
We need to introduce a physical framework from which we can establish physical cases that apply to all inertial reference frames!!!!!!
The best physical framework that exists for this purpose is the Standard Model. It is a work in progress, but based upon it, I will conclude that
Life is an event
Which is a set of physical parameters over a given time interval
We live until we die in the space-time of our Universe.

In making decisions, use equations
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 1 = {x,y,z} happens
E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} + not E{ Pt{x,y,z}%} = 0 = {x,y,z} does not happen
to determine which decision is best.
Our brains have a very hard time computing these
And often we make the wrong decision, but know
There is always a best decision
Whether or not this is evident to you at the time of decision making
Is a question of how well you understand the situation you’re in.
Either way, if we can sense, we can understand.
+Dump{Analysis of human action plus understanding + productivity/efficiency problems in all cases limited to human action}

Recent Poetry #4

If free of ambiguity,
love can be expressed directly.
If actions do not suffice,
(when we are not at our best)
words can only graze
(the substance of affection).

If friendship was only grass,
love could never be expressed,
actions would never suffice,
and words, much less.
___

To the forgotten sultans, unable to justify their rule,
to the remembered codes, able to clarify, enlighten,
to the unforgettable royalty, unable to remember
the non-existent beings whose death can't be imagined:

I salute you with utmost ignorance.

To the speck of dust, hidden in the wind,
to the hairs inside our noses, hiding specks of dust,
to the itch before a sneeze, effect with unknown cause,
the all too common things life cannot forget:

I adore you with impetuous indifference.

To the grain of sand, lodged in transition,
to the glass of hours, lodging in it grains,
to the hands of fate, ingraining in themselves pain,

I grieve the loss of time I have incurred:
to the veins that have bled for all,
and to all who have hoped, in vain.

Recent Poetry #3

Spellbinding diction,
rewarding father,
time's rewinding and,
all viewing in awe,
the past transforms
to present tense.
(while)
Previews of the future
present themselves
in past tense;
in all, reviews of awe:
thoughts on what just occurred.
(but)
Never again will it,
if only unneeded words
could misconstrue themselves
and emerge repaired,

bound together loosely,
as incantations mothering
a new meaning, to a set
of characters otherwise
non-existent.

Recent Poetry #2

I will pass into writing new voices.
When read the reader will stumble,
unless I believe I am humble,
as I write this scattered verse.

O Universe of choices, colliding
with free will, exciting life,
inviting voices old and new,
are you the
Universe of colliding choices,
containing ricochets of life,
giving weight to things so light as words?

Our frail will will break into pieces
when patience crumbles into mumbles,
but may we still believe we can attain
the peace we came to see unearthed.

Recent Poetry #1

This is subject to editing over time.
___

Surrealistic sounds of apocalypse battled the acoustic landscape of the setting. An inverted dome beneath us carried in it echoes; bait for bats. And we, only human, could not begin to explain why swarms of vermin spiraling in would not return.

It was imperative to first gather all basic necessities. Questions over the inexplicable are common distractions for sentient beings. Distraction is also commonplace in scenarios where destruction is imminent and people are responsible.

No apocalypse is complete without prerequisite tension. To visually describe sky shearing like a sheet of azure rubber would be to euthenize climax with a euphemism for a pathetic simile.

Similarly, the mind-bending events which result in the present will go undescript, and time will be the ultimate enemy of memory. Before I or any of my comrades forget the time when age and influence were numerically equated, these thoughts must be manifested so that the dignity of our people is preserved in the eyes of unbiased observers.

The attoscopic machinery of time and space whirs in place as though it never moved. Through these scopes called eyes I see everything that matters interact. I remain intact amidst the heat while my comrades, in vain, attempt to speak, but instantly incinerate. I cannot help but laugh, as always.

That is how we got here to begin with.

A little luck could not have been called for any less. The first fires seen seemed to have descended from the sky, with lightning and thunder. The ultimate regret of man is to have witnessed a burning branch and not have felt remorse.
___

For fear of reptiles, we sought solid ground amidst signs that we should return, but streams and time are stubborn things.

If by chance our voices echo in the swampy marsh and by night we do not find our way, know the silence of centuries unfolds inside this open field.

If by chance we find a beam of light beyond the trees and frogs, seeking the warmth of machines, and our intuitions lead us to digression...

if by day we do not find our way, know the silence of centuries echoes inside

___

People will choose the flaws they prefer. For better or worse there's nothing to think (about). As long as you and I exist, the things we choose will never change.

Moments whence a glance is too quick, or a smile too short: For better or worse, they happen to be, like all the things we touch and see...

places where a word means three, and polysyllabic cacophony reigns the ideas of Earth; we explain: for better or worse, the things we love will remain.

Memories lost to new experience, recovered by language and its impertinence; they cannot be remembered as learned, and cannot be forgotten as first known...

for if our choices change in style and our voices grow with boldness, a thought will earn the gentle caresses of the air between our lips and ears.