A little joke

 - There are no clouds on the horizon

 - ....er.... that's not the horizon.

My friend Dave Larson re-enters the picture

After ignoring my phone calls for several months, for whatever reason, an old friend decided to get in touch again. He added to his previous poem (see here):

SEARCHING FOR ARROWHEADS IN NEVADA WITH PETER WAKSMAN

The breath of the ancient ones did flow

Carried by westerly winds to the soul

Treading lightly on their hallowed ground

Through light and silence, there was no sound

Searching for signs of their time on earth

Carefully sifting through stones, desert hearth

Looking to find simple marks of their time

Migrating across this timeless sublime

The ancient ones can fill your soul

With dreams and visions that take their toll

Eyes to the ground but look up ahead

A stone circle gathering place we are lead

We can sense and feel their feet at the fire

As they rested, and ate, smoke rings rising higher

To see their lives and works turned to dirt

Opens the window of death... and it hurt 

I was hungry so I painted the garage

The title "I was hungry, so I painted the garage" was an example of a non-sequitur that can be resolved with an intermediary narrative. For example, 

I was hungry and walking into town. I saw a woman working in the yard of a house and she said she would give me a meal if I painted the garage. I was hungry, so I painted the garage.

The point of this story is that the phrase "I was happy, so I patted the dog" works without an invented narrative, because we all know that passion evokes action. 

To explain "I was hungry so I went to the kitchen" is a little more work.

Flowery language

 You could cut the tension with a fork.

Sunset across Gardiner Rd

 

Peter Waksman as a young hunter

 

Stories can continue

 The lowest level assumption of transitivity is that 

A story can continue from where it left off. 

To illustrate the meaning of this, consider the statement: 

If you can get from A to B and from B to C, then you can get from A to C. 

This is functionally false if you forget everything that just happened when you get to B. Who remembers A at that point? Or, by contrast, if you do remember getting to B from A, then you can remember that as you get to C and remember the whole sequence. It must play as a story that is being continued.

Another example is: if a<b and b<c then a<c. Mathematically we say b-a is positive and c-b is positive, so c-a is positive. But that is because c-a = (c-b) + (b-a) and the sum of two positives is a positive. Adding two numbers together is a narrative that is continued from a, to a+, to a+b.

In these cases, there is a preserving of information through the intermediate step, embodied in the idea of a story continuing. Am I overcomplicating this? The idea is that information from an earlier part of the story is still available if the story is continued. In my linguistics, this is built into the persistence of a ledger.