forecast: increased crowdiness
i like senseless sentences because nobody's said them before
like i'm filling the cracks of the previously expressed
and when i don't write, the
unused space continues
to get
sma
ll
e
r

untitled
do I know you? she said.
maybe.  you look familiar.
i invited the ocean wave to my table and it splashed on my face.  
the fish found the ashtray quickly and tried not to suffocate in 
a shallow pool of ashes and water.  
he plays sax on a two-dimensional hill, downward, upward, black glasses.  
fish fly out of it into the ocean, the ashes like confetti outside the church, 
where the steeple burns and the people scream and survival is important.  
to you.  to them.  and to me.
(and the carpet became a garden maze.  beethoven's moonlight was the 
theme song outside, where they didn't know it, but they danced.)

a scene somewhere
a woman leans against a door, crying
a man on the other side is playing his sax
and lying down with his neck against the door

malleable
picket-fences, colored spoons in a row.
'twas the earth people who built the idea of know.
and they are afraid of it.
so?

winter jazz
snow falls and brings warmth to the season.
i love the falling volcano ashes.
sadness turns to indifference --
jazz music in winter.

3am smoke break
wet green tree
against the crisp black night
the moon is bright

untitled
perfection will never come,
say the doubtful --
addicted to the past.
the reply?
ignorance is timeless --
but this dream is without

darwin was a pomo
when i hit
control-escape on my keyboard
it didn't take me out of chaos
-- only to the start menu
i wanted to say something when
my fingers moved ahead of me
and typed "which" instead of "what",
but they're hard-wired now.

i’m ok, you’re not
the circle learned the way of the square
and remembered and compared.
-- jumps on the chair, a slinky!
can i see that?  can i feel it, can i wheel it
out the door, oops, it broke into the four-letter 
rhyme-whore.
the tree holds the branches out to absorb the sun.
what fun! WHAT fun?

apartment complexity
it's time for a quality theme song.
oh, it's right here.
okay now people.
oh that's a good movie, i wanna tape that tonight.
let me finish it, kathleen.
they're good questions, i wanna go take a vacation.
it's a movie with a theme song.
that's a dollar in change.
what did the -- oh, he said, "absolutely".
take it for a test drive.
because the more i touch, the more i tolerate.
ah, you've got some wise men written on your head.
i'm not sure where to sign that one.
what do these people think about these things?
opening the door, an image appears, saying "we're with you"
if you're going to put all this money into it,
would you buy me a cigarette, please?

synthesis
the formation of an idea -- it's born in the room
where two men sit and listen to sounds
coming from the speakers on top of the shelf and one is
struggling with a puzzle where the other is celebrating a small victory.
the idea is never perfect but only after the action it is formed into the
record of some events, some un-reproducible sequence that maybe one
of them can recall as a dream. trace, thoughts shift always, it's a circular
motion of cause and effect, the mathematical principle of feedback, and
the music plays a role, and the floor plays a role - it's hard
and cold to the socks and feet of the men, one is tapping his heel
at the floor putting his other leg to sleep, some strain in his right
foot which is tucked up under his other leg, the chair rolls from
left to right and the other way, as chairs do when a person is
shifting, trying to find, in that back process of the mind, the perfect
position. sip of coffee, it's stale. and now one guy drops a grape 
on the floor and picks it up thinking about whether he should eat it --
did the other guy see -- will he think i'm a slob
who eats dirty grapes, a moment of hesitation and the taste is a little
off because either there was something on the floor or he is
imagining that there was something on the floor, legs shift,
fingers move furious - on the edge of a solution it is there he can
feel that he is visiting the land of answers and logic and dislogic
and he takes a handful of solution back to reality and works it 
into the mixture, full of sweat and victory and music 
and stale beans and water.

dimented [sic]
I'm trying to visualize five dimensions.  I don't know why.
At any given instant in time, we are 3-dimensional objects. 
Time is our fourth dimension. If you watch the path of an object 
through it's life, you see a long string. Let's say you drop a ball. 
The event lasts less than a second. If you were able to visualize the 
event in one instant, you would be 4-dimensional physically (and time 
would be the 5th dimension to you). You would see a line going down. 
But that line would have different intensities depending on how long 
it stayed in a given area. Near the top, it would be more dense (slower), 
and near the bottom it would be less dense (faster). But this model 
of visualizing four dimensions is missing something (since it's 
described from a 3-dimensional perspective). The problem is that 
by looking at a piece of the model, you can't tell which instant 
in time the ball was there. It could have traveled forward or 
backward, but we don't know. So we need a model that doesn't destroy that 
information. Remember, the key is to describe time as a static thing. For 
the sake of understanding, pretend that an instant is a unit of time. 
So, say, five instants is five times as long as one instant. Also pretend 
that space is the same way. Objects exist in cells. So one cell is one 
fifth the size of five cells. To have a static view, as seen from a world 
where the fifth dimension is time, you need to see each 'cell' (piece of 
space) as able to hold a number. Say our entire universe involves 10 instants 
of time, a 1-cell sized ball, and a 2x2x2 (8 cells) area of space. Our 
static 'picture' of the universe will ultimately be a 3-dimensional array 
of cells, each with a unique number. Each cell needs to be able to hold a 
number that is 10 bits long, since there are ten instants of time. To construct 
the picture, watch where the ball moves. Each time an instant (instant #N) 
occurs, turn on the Nth bit of the cell the ball is in. Interesting things 
about this model: In a model where you have an object of one cell size, 
no two cells contain the same number. The number of bits needed to represent 
a cell is always equal to the number of instants that occur in the universe. 
(Accordingly, the number of bytes needed is = i/8 The number of bytes needed 
to represent the universe is (i * x * y * z) / 8 So if your universe is 
100x100x100 and you have 100 instants, you need 11.92MB to represent it using 
this model. All kinds of compression is possible. Humans can visually 
percieve things at 30 or 60 frames/second, I think. I'll use 60. If you were 
to view a 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot area, where each cell was a millimeter 
in size (there are around 10 millimeters in the width of your finger), 
for five seconds, where each instant is 1/60th of a second, it would take 
about 1 gigabyte to represent a bit universe, uncompressed. If you have a 
pixel depth of 8, (256 colors possible in your universe), it would take 8 
gigs. Further, if you wanted to represent a room that was 10x15x20 
(about the size of my bedroom), for a full minute (60 seconds), it 
would take 1,406 TERABYTES. (or 1.37 Petabytes). Granted, that's a lot 
of information. But the interesting thing about this model is that 
you can compress the data better and better if you don't fill your 
universes with stuff you'll never see. So to render my bedroom from 
a single point in space, for a full minute (allowing you to turn around), 
you'd only have to make my universe as large as my field of vision. 
All the stuff behind could go away.

fish
the fish took a look up from the ashtray and rode the bike.
i mean as time went on, it sounded more and more riduculous --
so i hope you understand, but i just regurgitated my tail.
[everytime you hear a mousetrap snap, a mousetrap snaps]
ah, the moonlight was beautiful.  and why is subjective.
einstein was right about the dice thing.
yet quantum physicists pushed on,
and found that god could not be captured, only complicated.