something is the sum of its effects
Goals
To critically assess …
- The extent to which something is the sum of its effects
- Whether different explanations make a difference in results
- How items with the same effects share an identity
- Whether it makes any practical difference to be hopeful
- To what extent cause matters to the effect once effected
- Whether the context of a composition is part of its message
Lion Around
The lion tamer stands on a dais:
rounded platform, slightly raised.
Chair in one hand and big top hat,
her steely stare locked on the cat.
Then Leo begins to circle the stage,
at the centre of which is the tamer’s dais.
Midway he roars fierce and loud;
commands attention, hushes the crowd.
The tamer turns with the king of beasts.
Everyone watches at the edge of their seats.
Clockwise ol’ Leo encircles the dais,
but never once loses the tamer’s gaze.
Nor did he ever have sight of her back.
She kept turning toward him in case of attack.
So when the show’s over and Leo’s act done,
did he go around both or circle just one?
What do you Think?
- Did Leo go around the lion tamer? Do different definitions of ‘go around’ make any pragmatic difference as to what happened?
- Do different explanations make any difference in the results? For instance, does it matter whether temperature or Jack Frost cause frosty, fern-like patterns on windows? Why might it not matter to a 2 year old, but matter to a 20 year old
Zombie Mercy
There are diseases that make zombies of us.
They take the mind, leaving the body behind.
These confident thieves loot the family silver.
A spoon, a fork. Few at a time, all of the time.
My wife died with it, not of it. Freed
at night, she exhaled her heart to a full moon.
Reflected light, casting a path past dementia,
beacon to happy memory, where loss is forgotten.
Other people make a career of turning zombie,
swallowing potions of their transformation.
Reckless in their path less out than down,
depths that drown those who hold them dear.
May survivors of the battle with the bottle
give voice to the curse and grace of choice.
For zombie faces don’t differ a lot, between
those who couldn’t and those who would not.
What do you Think?
- The alcoholic will not choose otherwise. The demented can not choose otherwise. What practical difference is there between will not and cannot?
- The verse is written to survivors. In the end, is it optimistic (hope for the alcoholic) or fatalistic (would not = could not)?
Saint Mark
Her hero bears a crimson image,
she casts with hasty stories.
Working wonders, giving hope,
in tales of love and glory.
Moving around from town to town,
she spreads the good word vaguely.
Those with ears fill in the blanks,
those born blind say they see.
Easy answers are fast to catch,
when lit from every corner.
So her hero, ever promised,
need never make the border.
Good news offers inspiration,
for towns she leaves behind.
Fanning flames of imagination,
making miracles in the mind.
What do you Think?
- Suppose St. Mark was an itinerant storyteller. Does that make her gospel any less inspirational? If I say a miracle is something unexplained and welcome, something needed and just in time. By that definition, did Saint Mark work miracles? Can you?
- Does it change the narrative if I say this verse was inspired by the song “St. Matthew” (Michael Nesmith, 1968)? Does it change if I say Nesmith was part of the made-for-TV music group The Monkees? Is the context of a composition part of the message or just shiny? What if I say I think Nesmith is wrong that his song is about Bob Dylan? Can my/your interpretation be stronger than the author’s?