Dead & Alive

My Fundamentalism:

Drawing Distinctions = The Heart
of Thinking.

Arguing them Out = the Heart of
Academics

Relating Them = the Heart of
Liberal Art

Dead or Alive

With regard to converse-action, this
distinction is useful; and don’t be too
quick to say you prefer ALIVE. Yeah,
I might say that but when it comes down
to it I'm a dead-lover.

Live conversation is unpredictable,
because it’s alive and life is
indeterminate true? Need we
argue?

It goes where it goes, like the
whole-y spirit, digressive, trans-
gressive: might leap tall buildings
in a single bound.

ALIVE is a horror if I am trying to
get something done, cover ground
meet dead lines. Got to nail IT
down so it don’t wiggle while I
do my business.

The difference between Dead & Alive
is like the difference between Alice in
Wonderland Upside Down Flamingo
and Hedgehog croquet (deadly but
alive) on the one hand and on the other
hand: Hard Balls & Mallet croquet
(pleasantly, non-threateningly “alive”
because dead)—over all: predictable..

You might see the benefit in both kinds:
Live and Dead. But if you had to choose,
the Team you will play on, salute, serve
over-all (regardless of the dead-to-alive
ratios we are wrapped up in every day),
which would it be?

Dead or Alive?

I say DEAD. Dead dominates me and
my daily duties. I’m necrophiladelphan
and alive is too lively for me. I celebrate
“life” like I do diversity: as long as it’s
not too alive or too diverse.

Hardballs and mallets works for me—
not Calvinvball, damnit, like some
un-manned fire hose run rampant &
plastering me against the wall all
soaking wet… .

As of now--school back in session--
dead is boss. Too much to get done
& ground to cover to be unpredictable.