WINTER—A BIT PARKY?

IN THE interests of trying to retain some hint of contact between our common languages of English and American (and Ozz and NZ and any others that might also have sprung from the common well)(or dribbled …) I should really

EXPLAIN

that ‘parky’ in this context means a tad on the cool side. You know, as in chilly—like in ‘brass monkey weather’. Oh dear, you aren’t familiar with that term either? Okay … it is literally—

“Eek!”

“Now what?”

“Bloody cold out here tonight!”

“Oh! Yep. Parky enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey, no arguments there.”

—all very well and good. Except that the reference to ‘balls’ might need some explanation lest your jumping to undeserved conclusions sully my reputation for being of drawing room standard. So rather than yet another brief Argus summary I’ll let the good ol’ Apple onboard dictionary beat me to it, like so—

one image is worth a thousand words—Confusious

One picture is worth ten thousand words—Confusesus

—but in the scheme of things that’s neither here nor there.

My topic was literally ‘parky’ as in the parking of a car. I imagine that in some parts of the world a state of anarchy exists on the highways with concomitant causality count but here in NZ We, the People, are nothing if not as well drilled as our sheep. Probably better so, in fact …

SO YESTERDAY

I was hoofing through the pleasant wee suburb of Windsor when it occurred to me that although most Southlanders have independent natures on the roads, this lady was indeed using her initiative—

the hiker ...

—and getting the best of both worlds. I stood staring in rapt contemplation of an absolute masterpiece of devil-may-care flamboyant sang froid in the parking department. I watched as long suffering locals—obviously accustomed to a local character, beloved enough to make allowances—fitted themselves around what any damned Aucklander might have deemed an obstacle.

I even enjoyed listening as my hyperactive imagination coined a conversation between two little old ladies in the front seat—

“Errr … Myrtle?”

“Yes, Dear?”

“We seem to be a wee bit sticking out—?”

“Oh, don’t fret Dear. We can always walk to the kerb from here …”

—and walk they must have. I just hope they had enough rations to last the trip …

SO THAT’S WHY

I like Southland (believe it or not). Down here people have gumption enough to damn the torpedoes and go full ahead, devil-take-the-hindmost. Southlanders carve out their own future and are earthy enough to not even blink when some old poops talk about frozen brazen simian balls or practise original parking techniques. Their tolerance of eccentrics bodes well for our future …

.

NIL DESPERANDUM  

.

Advertisements

Come again~?

.

IT’S NOT AS IF

I mentioned it first. But: reincarnation returns.

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (1)

  • I do not believe in reincarnation
  • I do not disbelieve in reincarnation
  • I just don’t know
  • But I do tend more towards belief than not

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (2)

  • I am an agnostic
  • I am an atheist as well
  • and am anti organised religions (which exist to milk the vulnerable)

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (3)

  • to me nothing is impossible (as a concept)
  • but everything can be graded in various degrees of ‘probable’

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (4)

Sometimes I feel safer with the Socratic method. No apologies offered or accepted. Thus:

Disregarding much New Age and Spiritualist rubbish—is it not possible that the physical selves we see at any instant are simply three dimensional slices of four dimensional objects ( … obviously)?

RIGHT HERE

You may take a break. My point is made; but we can always gild the lily a little a bit, like this—

GIVEN

that our minds can achieve little (if anything) in this physical world without a physical body to apply the necessary forces when required—can we not assume that our physical body is nothing more than a tool that our mind uses to achieve its ends?

Everything physical is subject to the laws of the physical world which means erosion, wear, and tear. So if (when) the vehicle wears out we simply put it down and take up a new one? This one question begs myriads more—beginning with the obvious ‘why’?

  • Why,
  • for what purposes,
  • to what ends?

What’s the point—why ask me: I don’t know.

All I can offer is theory, conjecture, and a warning to be wary of anyone who can answer that question.

THE OBVIOUS

facile answer here is of course good old God. We are here to serve good ol’ God’s purposes. And having got that out of the way, let’s get on with the post …

TO NOT DIGRESS

at primary school we were once asked “What is the purpose of a flower?” Most of the kids said the same (effectively a consensus) “To make the world beautiful”. When the teacher got to me I think I disappointed him because I passed—I didn’t have an answer. To me a flower was simply a flower, a fact of life as much as rocks and that was that. His answer when it came, grandly delivered fell quite flat: “To make another flower!”.

SO …

if I were to accept the concept of reincarnation it would be simply as another fact of existence; one for which I couldn’t post a reason. I wouldn’t attribute grandiose purposes to it, or unverifiable evolutionary paths such as from rock to seaweed to flower to worm to ant to bug to serpent to bird to dog to low-caste human to high-caste human to saint to angel to ‘reunion with the godhead’ etc etc.

I COULD ACCEPT REINCARNATION

as a fact on the basis of our disposable body as a vehicle/tool combo. I’m with Voltaire in that it would be no more remarkable to be born twice than once.

WHAT I WOULD FIND MOST REMARKABLE

would be if there were any carry-over from one incarnation to the next. Unless the mind can or does actually affect the body? But that’s for another post …

.

KISMET

.