This is a simple way of putting it: to assume that tax policy does not influence rates of investment is to claim that someone will work as hard for $10/hour as for $50. For anyone who works hard, it is very hard writing checks to the IRS.
Why risk anything–and business expansion is always a risk–if even if you succeed you are working for peanuts?
I’m reindulging my interest in Aromatherapy as a sort of mood modifying and spur to creativity, and it occurred to me it would be interesting to integrate essential oils into dining experiences. As they say, half of “taste” is in fact smell, so would adding complementary smells not potentially alter in a synergistic way the experience of dining?
As an example, adding the smell of cloves or black pepper to a meal of steak, or bergamot to a pasta marinara dish, or cinnamon to a desert that otherwise does not contain cinnamon. Orange to a salad course. Or, presumably, there are many synergies out there that are not obvious, just as there are in cooking itself.
In a multicourse meal you could put aromatherapy pots out, and switch them as the courses change. You could key them on the wine or beer, or the food, or even a mood you were trying to set.
Then I got to thinking about it, and thought that you could add appropriate music for each course. You could have leitmotifs tied to certain foods or ingredients, recurring themes.
More generally, the goal would be the creation of a mood which combines aesthetic novelty with pleasure, with meditation.
Then I got to thinking about it, and thought that you could add colors–fabric stretched between poles for example–potentially combined with feng shui–and move tables around, move fountains around, or even change artwork.
A talented artist could create a multimedia experience, combining original artwork, music, food, aromas. To add touch you could alter the texture of the chair, or table cloth. Obviously food can have different textures as well.
Then I got to thinking about Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk idea, and thought this would actually fit the bill better.
So much happiness is created with food, so much pleasure, with the right people, in the right place, right environment.
Then, of course, I got to thinking about what modern artists would make of this, bringing out plates of raw meat, and angry music, and bitter colors, destroyed on a tattered canvas.
There is no creation in destruction. This should be obvious. There is a profound difference between describing failure, and creating success. Life follows life. The first and foremost creation of any useful art is a character and self consistent with life, with the spirit, the energy of Goodness, of love, of possibility, of a FUTURE.
When we see destruction in art, what we are seeing is self destruction. We are seeing selves which have not formed, and which rather than trying to form choose to reflect in “creativity” their failures.
Destruction can always appear to be creation, since change is happening, movement is happening. But plainly it is not.
This idea is original, I think. I have not seen it anywhere else. Particularly the Aromatherapy idea seems to me to be interesting.
Life is work.
Clarifying Correlates:
Rest is work.
Love is work.
Love is rest.
To live is to create; to create is work. To create space is to rest; resting consists in creating space: space to dream, to waste time, to disorganize time, to manifest things you had no clue existed.
When we create, we are imitating in a beneficial way our Creator, whose sole joy in life–whose life consists in joy, which is work and rest–is to create.
Love is both work and rest; it is the particle and the wave. When in communion, when surfing a perfect wave, it is effortless. When the wave ends, you must swim back out to catch the next one, and that is work.
That about covers it.
I will add that words are of course symbols, as has often been pointed out in the last century, and their meaning–the precise images and affects conjured–therefore is always in the end somewhat individualized.
In discussing God with my oldest, the image of God as a “white blob” came up. My response was that God is much, much more interesting than that. I would say that whenever you spontaneously create a feeling of engagement, of effortless work, of joy, of beauty, of BEING INTRIGUED, you are worshiping and seeing God at the same time. What we call love is just a form of fascination, of effortless work, is it not?
I had to write that. Now I’m going back to bed to dream some new dreams, to restwork and workrest.
Somebody posted this on my Facebook page: http://inhabitat.com/german-village-produces-321-more-energy-than-it-needs/
I am a grumpy Republican, who self identifies as a Liberal, but who could easily be called a Libertarian. I’m supposed to love gas guzzling cars and coal dust in the air. I don’t. I’m not stupid.
I do categorically reject the falsified hypothesis of significant anthropogenic influence on the climate. However, I like the idea of local. I like the idea of things–including power–being made and consumed within close proximity.
We need to break all the large things down, and let self organizing systems organize on scales that are manageable. I believe Aristotle defined the proper size of a Polis as that distance within which the shout of a man with a strong voice from a high point could be heard. That has always made sense to me.
We all have problems. Some of us, though, carry things we cannot name or identify, that go back into that magical world of our childhood, into currents that formed us.
Without sharing all the details, I remember a dream from when I was very young, perhaps five, in which I was being crushed into a pulp.
When I look at Tom Waits, I see that same sort of dynamic. I know a few details of his life, but the broad outline is that he was presented with a psychological survival situation where it was sink or swim, create a new self, or be condemned to a life beyond his control.
I think many creative and adventurous people face something similar. Greg Lemonde, as an example, was apparently molested.
One can say that suffering is always bad, but I simply don’t agree. I don’t think this Earth, this world, is really designed for happiness. That is what what we call heaven is for. This place is for learning, and sometimes I think one of the best teachers is people trying to kill you physically or psychologically. In such a situation, you cannot remain still. You must either adapt–which includes learning how to adapt–or die.
I’m zeroing in on something. That is why the personal notes. Why I post in public is in the hope a flash of recognition may help someone else out there feel less alone.
Do you want the financial destiny of your nation controlled by unelected bureaucrats who cannot be convinced that water prevents dehydration?
To be clear, the word “hydrate”, in English, derives from the Greek word for water, and in turn comes from a French word meaning the same thing. So quite literally, and without any obvious means of redressing this insult, the bureaucrats of Brussels have declared, legally, that “de-waterification cannot be cured or prevented by waterification”,in flagrant violation of common sense and the experience of us all.
Do you want these people in charge? You know damn well that political control will follow, since power follows money.
In our own country-far less diverse in many ways than the polyglot EU–we only migrated from the Articles of Confederaion to the Constitution after winning guarantees that a Bill of Rights would be added to protect the States. Nothing like that is being discussed in Europe. It is blatantly obvious that the leftist power mongers are hoping to enact in reality a technocratic, undemocratic State without ever having it put to a vote.
This is what Fabians do: they don’t call what they are doing what it is–they call it something else, push it through, then keep moving.
Just how decadent and tired of freedom are you Europeans? It is an open question.
I agree that all’s fair in war. It is, after all, a contest in which the winner will not be bound by rules with respect to the loser, and in which in all cases many people will die or be permanently hurt.
Not so much in love. Short story, then my “insight” (in quotations, since I have no way of knowing when I’m being an idiot): sitting in a Cheesecake Factory, which is not my normal habitat. It’s a chick place, in my opinion, and for celebrations of after-somethings, or before-somethings. I was hungry, though, it was close and I knew they had large portions.
They seat this younger woman by herself 3 tables down. I figure she’s waiting on someone, since if you watch the world, you will notice that women nearly NEVER eat by themselves. How can they get to that daily word count that is some multiple that of men by themselves?
Eventually, her food comes and I realize she’s it. Then I notice she’s reading a Spanish dictionary, which is something I could imagine myself doing. So I start talking with her. Her dad was career Marine Intelligence, which I think is super cool, and she is a contract Arabic translator, thinking about taking on Farsi or Russian. Now, languages are one of my things, having done coursework in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi, Sanskrit, and Chinese, and being fluent (mehr oder weniger) in German. But she has a boyfriend, who has won a bunch of awards, so I back off.
Now, I am not shy, but I have firm rules about women in relationships. I thought about this, and wondered: what exactly ARE your rules? What I had until then were habits.
Here is the rule, though, which can be expressed as a principle: do not break things which are not broken. Life is always imperfect. Is her relationship with her boyfriend perfect? Of course not. She felt the need to justify her attachment to him.
But what would it imply about me if I went ahead and tried to befriend her, then seduce her at some point, knowing that someone somewhere was very attached to her? It would mean that I was so WEAK that I could not stand my own solitude enough to adhere to my own principles.
Do not be weak. Breaking things which are not broken because you NEED to, due to a lack of character, is wrong. This should be clear enough, but nothing is clear any more.
That is enough moralizing for today. Hopefully I am being somewhat clear.
Actually, I will add a postscript: tonight I was sitting in a bar, with seductions being attempted on either side of me. On my left, a woman was trying to seduce a man, and on my right, a man a woman. The one on my right was more interesting. The guy had been sitting much further down on the right at the bar. The girl walks in, sits down, and 3 minutes later he asks if he can sit between me and her. The chair on her other side was not taken, but this is called, as I understand the current terminology, “cock blocking”, and is intended to prevent me from muscling in on his action.
Now, they clearly did not know each other well, but were expecting to see each other, so I assume they were either set up by friends, or met on some social networking site.
She had kind of a sorority air, one of these women who seem like they have no depth or gravity. As I see it, this is likely not true, but I think what happens with some women is they have very unhappy home lives, so they adopt this sort of detached, giggly persona to fit in. This persona, though, is easily manipulated, and I felt that is what he was trying to do. I left before they made their decisions, but he’ll likely get lucky soon.
I listened and pondered: how do I feel about all this? Sex is fun, of course, but it is never emotionless. There is always another person, another self, another vulnerable vitality out there. I have seduced my share of women. You do your thing, then you are gone. My last girlfriend was OK with me just stopping by for sex every Tuesday.
But I can’t do that. It’s not natural. To do that sort of thing regularly is to short circuit the relationship capacities with which you are born, those of love and fondness and respect and loyalty and devotion. It is to live a half life.
Now, I listen to Bob and Tom on occasion. One gets the sense listening to most comedians that our task as men is to seduce as many women as we can, to see as many boobs, and get our rocks off as often as we can. This is a short life, a life lived to the specifications of the May Fly, or the lemming, or some animal desperate for replication, but not nourishing continuity.
I choose not to live like that. I felt no jealousy for this guy at all, and I felt pity for the woman, who, being young, was likely hoping this guy would be different, when in fact he was likely NOT at all different.
I’ve had a few, and this is no doubt rambling, but I thought I would put these ideas out there–as always, in the hope they may help improve someones life. Lord knows we can all use some help on occasion, myself categorically included.
Seemingly paradoxically, I think Obama’s ascendancy to the Presidency has actually made leftist organizing HARDER, not easier. Leftist agitprop is always based upon false flag rhetoric, in which appeals are made to sentimental emotions: compassion, “justice”, mercy, fairness. In reality, of course, there is no moral core of Leftism, which is why once the 10% of the 10%–you do the math–get their way, they eradicate all opposition through violence.
But Obama got elected. He is in office. He is not in opposition. There is no “them” that is strong enough to take the spotlight off of him. We are getting what leftists ACTUALLY want: nothing. No progress. No fairness. Look at Cuba: what did all the suffering Castro inflicted on them win them? Nothing. Nothing but terror, emotional emptiness, an inconsolable sadness, and generalized and ineluctable poverty.
You cannot, as an organizer, point to Obama and say: THAT is what we want. Nor can you ignore him. The organizers are the ones who put him there. They can say he was corrupted by the system, but he wasn’t. He was is and always will be an empty suit, directed by men and women largely in the shadows.
I think the leftist action for the near future will be in Europe, in trying to force at least a piece of their long desired global government; and it will be in the UN, trying to get yet more resources allocated to them, and trying to get more power–always more power, no matter the cause or place, with these people.
If I have to pick between Romney and Newt, I will pick Romney. For anyone who cares, I’ll just put that out there. It is truly disappointing that in a nation of some 350 million people this is the best we can do. It is, I think, a clear residual effect of the long term successful use of the demonic Alinskyan strategies, of not just refusing to discuss issues, but actively PREVENTING the use of actual reason in the public space, such that people not only fall for their vilifications, but fail to notice that nothing substantive has even been permitted to enter the public space.
Was Cain’s 9/9/9 plan discussed substantively? If so, I missed it.
Has Perry’s call to end Cabinet level bureaucracies been discussed substantively? If so, I missed it.
Retarded clowns: that is our media. They want their circus on a sinking ship, and have figured out how to ostrasize anyone who points out that humans don’t breathe water. Some of us will have life jackets, but that will not lessen the scale of the disaster.
I have cited Freud’s “love and work” as the key to happiness (I am most days speaking speculatively here, although I definitely have my moments), but it occurs to me he neglected a key element in a life well lived: rest. Or, perhaps I could use the work re-creation, that process by means of which you recover from your work, such that you can again approach it creatively, with engagement, with passion, with life.
Now, for some people their life IS their work. Even beyond the so-called “workaholic” there are people who find their meaning in their work. To my mind, though, it is important not to be too attached to anything.
Take as an example Edison. He would work until he was tired–day or night–then sleep, forgetting completely about what had until them preoccupied him. I think this is healthy. He loved what he did, but he took breaks from it, and when he did he did it COMPLETELY.
An interesting example is Albert Schweitzer, who seems to have been the Mother Theresa of his day, although of course in all visible ways he was much more gifted. He only slept some 2 hours a night. He would practice medicine all day, then switch–completely and fully and with seemingly no gaps–to one of his other passions: theology, philosophy, or music. His rest came from moving from one perceptual work domain to another.
Some time ago, listening to a course on Jewish history, the professor made the point that if we take the 7th day, that of rest, seriously, then it logically follows that the other 6 days are days of WORK. And how do Jews rest on the Sabbath? Through prayer, family time, and worship. Through community and communion.
It seems to me one could perhaps judge someones character equally by what they choose to do for a living–and how committed they are to doing it well–and by how they choose to relax. If, as in the stereotype for executives, it is through golf, drinking and weird sex, then that is all we need to know about their characters, isn’t it? And if it is through charity, self improvement, or even just sleep, that says something too.
Few meandering thoughts.