A Poet, A Neuroscientist, and a Witch Walks Into Bar. . .

Bartender puts down a single napkin and asks her, What can I get you?

Get it?

The title isn’t a grammatical error, the subject and verb agree, because the poet who walks into the bar  –I picture someone badass like Natalie Scenters-Zapico, confident, meeting up with other poets for dinner and drinks during AWP—is also the scientist and the witch. 

Maybe in some ways, or like the poet Andrés Montoya used to tease me for saying, on some levels all poets are scientists and practice magick (why a k?). 

Poets are like scientists (on some level they are scientists) because they have a curiosity about how things work, especially the brain-mind, what motivates people, how they feel, see, taste and connect ideas in meaningful ways. The best poets seem to soak their feet into the intellectual waters of sundry subjects. Toni Morrison dipped into the Nag Hammadi, which are beautifully creative texts reinforcing the gnostic point of view of God and Reality. Poe studied physics. Borges studied Kabbalah. Pizarnik studied philosophy.

Poets are neuroscientists.

Poets are witches.

But first, let me define what I mean by “Poet.”

I remember having a conversation with my colleague, the poet and translator Rosa Alcalá. 

She told me it irritates her when people write emails addressing “poets and writers.”  

Rosa is a working-class Latina from Paterson, New Jersey, and when she’s defending a position she sometimes switches into street mode, the don’t-fuck-with-me nod of the head. 

She tells me, Are they saying I’m not a writer? How are poets not writers?

I agree, and ever since our conversation I rarely make the distinction between poets and writers.

We are one.

By poet I don’t mean only those who write verse. I mean all creative writers.

Everyone knows that there was a time in our human story when narratives were told only in verse, and verse was used only to tell stories, but somewhere along the plot-line of humanity, what God had put together –the storyteller and the poet — were torn asunder. 

It was not a natural or inevitable split, so it makes sense that by poets we can mean all creative writers, poets, fiction writers, memoirists.

We’re all poets. All creative writers, all genres. Poets.

(By the way, what is the collective noun for poets?? You have a murder of crows, an army of ants, perhaps a star of poets?)

So a poet is a writer. 

The term neuroscientist, as it appears in the joke, refers to scientists in general, to the methods and the value system, especially those sciences involved in the quest to unite all of reality, such as physics and studies of the mind-brain duality. 

Scientists seek to unite, to offer one elegant equation about reality, the universe, the way things work.  

They say that the holy grail of physics is how Quantum mechanics, the study of the subatomic world of electrons and strange quarks can have the same laws as the theories of relativity, spacetime and the planets and the universe. 

The two areas of science don’t agree, and if someone can come up with a ToE, something Einstein tried but failed at most of his adult life, they will know the thoughts of god.

That’s one of the most famous quotes in all physics, Einstein saying, I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is detail.

The scientist who walks into this bar, who is also a poet, is the kind of scientist that believes reality can be explained through math, i.e. language, using the most elegant equation. A haiku of reality such as


Ever since Galileo math has been the language of science, and if it cannot be expressed in math, it is not science, it’s philosophy, metaphysics. What makes neuroscience fun to follow is how math is being used to explain consciousness, our behavior, our unpredictability, the mystery of our experiences. 

A book I highly recommend, readable for nonscientists like me is The Forgetting Machine by Rodrigo Quian Quíroga. 

He created a mathematical model of neuronal activity and can pinpoint with precision how neurons fire when a concept is brought up in the mind, like Jennifer Aniston. 

He found that there is a Jennifer Aniston neuron in your brain, and it serves only to represent her and what she means to you, and every time it fires, he can chart — again with mathematical precision — what other neurons will fire as a result. 

He’s from Argentina, Buenos Aires, having studied physics, but like a lot of neuroscientists today, he became interested in the brain. 

Since his emphasis is memory, he has found a connection with Borges and has written a book about him and memory, which I’ve yet to read, but I’ve ordered it and will get back to you on what I think.

So a poet is a neuroscientist.

What about the witch?

Why are poets witches?

In a nutshell:

When we follow language into imaginary places and possibilities, we travel outside of our bodies, like soul travel. We often enter into the zone, where matter and spacetime disappear. This is well known among writers. 

In other language, we enter into the astral plain, where we’re met with guides (voices) and demons (rhythms and incantation) and we are shown entirely new worlds in which anything can happen.  

Poets travel the various levels of reality in our imagination, and the more we are willing to allow language to lead us into alternate universes, the more we are able to see beyond the ordinary. This is why some fundamental Christian sects claim that free writing is evil, because you’re channeling demons, or more accurately daemons. Muses. Duende.

Do you know how long it could take practitioners of esoteric knowledge to enter into some of the realms that poets have visited?

Poets are witches.

Anton’s Syndrome For Creative Writers

Anton’s Syndrome is a form of brain damage in the occipital lobe, wherein someone suffers blindness but does not know it. They believe they can see, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are blind. 

Say your uncle Willie suffered this condition, and you take him into a field, and in the middle of the field, there is an adult elephant, African, with big ears, eating leaves off a tree. You could ask Willie what he sees, and to cover his blindness, he might say, Not much. Just the road.

And even if you tell him that you’re in a field looking at an elephant, he would find someway to cover the truth about his blindness, say something like, Well obviously the elephant’s there. I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.

Of course this is a gross simplification, but there is evidence that the person who suffers from Anton’s Syndrome may not be lying to you about what they see. They may really be convinced that is what they see, convinced that they are not blind.

What a metaphor for bad writing!

Let’s apply this to fiction writers, someone like me, for example, although it would equally apply to poets. 

Let’s say I write a story, and I think it’s good, best story ever written. I submit it to journals and cannot believe I get rejections. What is wrong with these editors?

(When we were new writers, every time I got a rejection for a story, Andrés Montoya would say, They’re stupid!)

After about a year of sending the story out and receiving only rejections, and as I’m working on other stories, I forget about it, and then one day I’m wandering through the document graveyard on my computer and see the forgotten story. I open it, read it and think, What a shitty story! The worst story ever written.

This has happened to me from the time that I was a beginning writer and would crank out story after story thinking each one belonged in The New Yorker to me as a writer today. 

I’ve written stories that give me chills for their brilliance, only to read them later and get chills of how blind I was to think it was worth something.

If you’re a writer, sometimes the stories are going to come easy, sometimes a little harder, but often, when you’re in the “zone” and you’re writing, nothing else exists but that which you create, a reality bubble in an imaginary world. 

Everything is new and exciting, so of course you’re going to think it’s great.

What I’m saying is we can have a version of Anton’s Syndrome as writers, not seeing reality as it is, because we are only seeing from the inside of the creative process, not from the outside, and when we’re in there, things are sacred. Everything is brilliant.

But eventually we have to step outside of the reality of language and imagination and see what the story might be saying or how it might be read by others.  That’s where the craft comes in.

This isn’t an exact parallel. I mean, I’m using Anton’s Syndrome as metaphor, but I think it translates. 

But here’s the thing, unlike someone who unfortunately suffers from that disorder, writers who are committed to their work eventually see the truth of the piece they once thought was perfect, or they see more aspects of the truth, because the brilliance they saw before really was there.

Even if only one image from the entire story lasts, even if nothing from the story lasts, the glow of having been in that landscape is permanent and positive.

But it may not make good writing.

It’s possible that later on, in a week or month or year, I may see this post and ask myself, Why did I include this in my blog? It’s shit!

Sorry. The idea sounded good when it first occurred to me.

And frankly I just followed the language, and this is where it ended up.

That Song You Can’t Get Out of Your Head Wants to Kill You.

We don’t choose the songs and tunes that loop around and around in our heads, ad nauseam, over and over again, sometimes a song so random we don’t even know why we thought of it. 

If we could choose, I certainly wouldn’t walk around the house hoping to be an Oscar Meyer wiener.

I wouldn’t have a Britney Spears tune in my head claiming, Oops! I did it again! nor would I have those children’s songs I play for my baby about an elephant balancing on a spider web.

There’s obviously a neurological explanation for why these tunes loop in our brain, a phenomenon that has been called Earworms, and it is a fact that we have no power to stop these worms from boring the same song over and over into our brains. 

We don’t choose the loops, but they have an effect on our behavior.  Yes, that is what I’m saying, the tunes that get stuck or looped in our brains influence our choices and behavior, definitely our thoughts.

If I’m going around the house all day wishing to be an Oscar Meyer wiener, that loop is going to influence my perceptions and ultimately some of the nuances involved with my decisions. In deciding what I want to eat that day, I might very well crave a hotdog, but because I’m an intelligent being and will not allow that song to influence me, I will choose instead tacos, not realizing that the taco choice has been determined by the loop in my head as well.  

Hot dog lead me to choose tacos, because in some unconscious neural connection, hotdogs is to Americana as tacos are to Mexicanidad, so in rejecting one my mind goes directly to what is coded in my network as the opposite.

If that Oscar Myer song hadn’t been in my head all day, I might very well have eaten a salad.

This is a form of priming,  a concept in psychology that shows how people can be made to act a particular way by giving them unconscious signals.  For example, if you give people a word test, and on that test the psychologists embed words that seem to be random but that have a pessimistic view of life, sadness, depression, and you give another group the same test but with words that were more positive, hopeful, happy, after the test is over, those who were given positive words behaved differently from those who had been given negative words. 

The participants are influenced in their thoughts and choices, even when they don’t know it.

These song loops that play in our mind over and over again have the ability to prime our cognitive experience for that day.

I know this may sound crazy, and that’s OK, but priming is a fact –if you consider facts to be evidence, overwhelming evidence.

Say it was the Britney Spears song looping back over and over again in my head all throughout the morning and the afternoon and even into the evening, Oops, I did it again! 

I am statistically more likely to make daring choices that day than I otherwise would, because my brain keeps telling me, Oops! I did it again! 

What the heck, I might say to myself, Do it again! 

Maybe this is a good reason to avoid too many drinking songs, like Thurgood’s One bourbon, One scotch and One Beer.

With drinking songs looping around in my head over and over again all day long, you could guess what I am likely to do after a hard day work on my drive home, stop at the pub, a decision that I am not really making but that is programmed into me by this loop. 

I think I’ll leave it to the neuroscientists to figure out how the brain works it’s mechanism, but what I’m concerned with is one important question:

Who’s choosing the songs that get stuck in my head? 

It ain’t me.

The Geometry of Meditation

When you try box breathing, your feet firmly planted on the floor, sitting up with good posture, your eyes closed, you breathe in and hold it for as long as you just breathed in; and then you breathe out and hold it for as long as you just breathed out; and repeat. . . breathe like a box. 

If your eyes are closed and you are consciously practicing box breathing you are going to imagine a box, so in the center of your imagination, which is like a circle in the middle of your body, there is a square.  

The square doesn’t exist. You can’t pick it up or smell it, unless of course your imagination is greater than most, so the square that you have inside of you, the one that you imagine, is not significant for its material properties, but for its encoded meaning. What does the square mean?

Whatever it is, underlining all meanings are energies, and you now have the energy of that symbol within you.

I think the military uses this breathing technique not only for the mindfullness it encourages, but also because a square is like protective walls, four walls that keep whatever is inside, which is you or your team, safe.

There are four walls surrounding you, inhale, silence, exhale, silence.  

There are other more powerful meanings to a Square as well. 

I’m sure I could Google them and find many, structure, balance, law and order, the body. The point is in that in your imagination you hold a square and it has properties, particular meanings embedded into the image, whether or not the observer is conscious of them.

So if you could do box breaking as square in your imagination, can you practice the same technique with other geometry, like a diamond?

Breathe in at the bottom point, hold, breathe out, hold. Or can you imagine the breaths making a triangle?

 And what are the possible meaning of the diamond and the triangle? 

If you become really disciplined at this breathing technique, you could even make a star, a pentagram and a hexagram, or however many sides you want, and now that energy is also within you. Or if you are rooted in Christian tradition you could breathe a cross, and in imagining that cross built by your own breaths, you hold it within you, the power of it. You are the temple.

How many of these geometric shapes can you have spinning around in your imagination at once? Are they useful?

It may not be easy to access the power of geometry, because box breathing is a meditation practice, and unless you meditate often, it is difficult to not think, and so easy to leave the moment to think about the past or the future. 

But if you could get good at focusing on the Now and tweak the practice to include other shapes, you could have a whole range of geometry inside of you, not to rule you, not to tell you what to do, but to be part of your connection to All.

The Forer Effect on Books

You’re the kind of person who really tries, more so than most people even realize. You’re diligent, intelligent, and when you need to focus you can be incredibly effective at doing so.  Sure, you like to take time to decompress, and the way you choose to do so may not always be the most healthy option for you, but you never go too far and always pull yourself back where you need to be.

Does this describe you? 

It probably does.

Maybe not all of you, but most of you can relate to this. In psychology it’s called the Forer Effect, which suggests that our brains process vague personality descriptions (especially if flattering) that could apply to anyone, but we think that they exclusively apply to us and are written for us.

This is why we can read a horoscope and be amazed at how accurate it is. That’s me! This is why we believe psychics and mentalists when they tell us things about ourselves. You’re sensitive and care about others, but you have your limits!

I’m not saying there are no such thing as psychics ( that’s a conversation we can have later), but I am saying that if somebody wanted to deceive you in believing they know you, the descriptions they use can be nothing more than general statements that apply to pretty much everybody.

I think the Forer Effect could equally apply to book reviews, especially lately. If you’re a published writer, then you are aware that you can have a service wherein someone will write 50 book reviews, for a price, so you can post them all over social media and the web, and it seems like the book is getting a lot of attention.

It makes sense that it’s available today in publishing.

Your book comes out at the same time as thousands of other books, the same day, and the next day there are thousands of other books released into the world. Unless your book is published by one of the big New York companies, it will most likely struggle to get attention among the other books.

Writers post everything that they can that mentions their book, because they have to promote their own work if they want someone to read it, and that’s what mostly every writer wants, for people to read their work.

I imagine in the future, as literary publishing continues to transform to a model that fits the times and technology, the book-review-for-hire industry is only going to become more profitable. Literary writers will have a veritable smogsboarq of companies to hire, and they will pay good money.

If somebody is willing to self publish, they are paying for that service, so it seems the investment in reviews would help sell books.

But beware of the Forer Effect. Some of the services you hire may be run by the literary equivalent of false psychics and mentalists in that they can use vague descriptions that you hope describes your work. The language twists and swirls like magic throughout the pages.

It may seem difficult to write 50 book reviews, but it could be pretty easy, and the reviewer wouldn’t even have to read the book except to scan the pages for the characters name and a general plot line.

Let’s say you just published a novel, and you’re eager to get people to read it, so you hire a company to write reviews, and this is the first one they send you.

A tour de force! (Enter you name here) new novel (enter title) is excellent story about a determined (man, woman, detective, etc) named (insert character’s name here) with a lot of surprises and beautiful detail. At times (he/she/they) seems to be unwilling to make what they know are the right choices but there is definitely a conflict between what (character’s name) wants and what they need. All is rendered effortlessly in (enter name of writer)’s newest book, with a compelling story and elegant prose, which, although, at times may draw too much attention to itself, is an authentic narrative voice.

This could be a useful review for writer, and you could even quote it, so-and-so says Daniel Chacón is “an authentic narrative voice.”

Instead of calling it the Forer Effect, for book-review mountebanks, who can simply scan the pages of your book, not even read it in its entirety and write a review that you will love and that you will believe was written exclusively to describe your work, we can use a different term.

Maybe The Tour-de-Force Effect?

Throughout the years I’ve received some reviews about my books, but nobody has ever called what I have written a tour de force.

I’d pay for that shit!

I wonder how much that would cost. . .



In Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari closes the book with this question.

I’m convinced this may be the most important question you can ask yourself. 

If you are prone to “know thyself,” if you seek meaning in life, want to know what is beyond the physical veil of reality, if you are comfortable in a world where there are only questions, each of which have multiple legitimate answers and even more silly answers, then this is the fundamental question:

What do you want to want?

Not, Who am I? 

Why did God put me here? 

What’s the meaning of life? 

Whereas all these questions are important and can lead to great metaphysical pleasure and insight, none of them are fundamental.  

We are humans. 

We are energy and organic matter. 

This energy that makes us human and that causes us to grow from a sperm seeking an egg into a child wanting juice, an adult working to make more money, an old person sitting on a porch looking off onto the trees and wanting to paint them or write a poem, is desire.

But I wouldn’t call it wont, nor would I find the question is what do you want to want, although the poetry is much better, I would rather say what do you want to do with your desire?

Primary desire, that which makes us human, is unformed in its purest manifestation.

It has no image. Desire is pure energy that expands.

Humans have a brain that seeks happiness, pleasure, good feeling. 

We want to be happy.  Perhaps Happy is Desire’s first manifestation, the Understanding, the Binah on the Tree of Life, whereas Desire would be Keter, or crown.

Although happy is more limited than desire it nonetheless is still an unformed energy. Happiness in its purest form has no shape, no image.

And often times, when it finally reaches our consciousness, way down here on the bottom of the tree, some of us think to be happy is something material, a family, our own business, a vacation in Cancun, or even to go shopping and buy this and that. 

We want more and more of what makes us happy. 

But what makes us happy are simply neurotransmitters and hormones, serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin.

What we THINK makes us happy is what we want. 

Want is the last and the least manifestation of primary desire.

Want is temporal, material, and it is at home in the everyday world (malkuth) within which we struggle to be happy.

We think that what makes us happy is to get what we want.

But want is the least of all desire.

But no judgement here, because if that’s all you want, that chemical experience of happiness, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting more, shopping every day on Amazon, clicking here and there and buying this and that, because every time you do it,  your body produces neurotransmitters that frankly make you happy.  

But if that’s not enough. Some people need meaning.

Meaning could be the other unformed manifestation of primary desire.

Desire is at the top, the emanation, and it comes down and is beginning to take form as “happy” and “meaningful.”

This is your power. This is your energy. To filter it though want weakens it. So we get back to Harari’s question, what do you want to want?

What I want is not to want, but to return to desire, and to be able channel that energy into my life.

Ok, maybe I’m being a bit woo woo.

Desire creates the idea of happy and the idea of meaning.  

Humans are meaning-seeking machines, who want to be happy. There is no happy without meaning. They are the first manifestations of desire, and you cannot live a balanced life without them working together.

Thoughtful people look for, find, or spontaneously discover meaning in absolutely everything.  

You could behold the most beautiful sunset ever, and you will not only have a sense of pleasure and well-being, but a deep belief that you are connected to something beyond yourself, something meaningful. 

Want is at the very bottom, but we often fail to see a difference between what we want and what makes us happy, because we think what we want will make us happy. 

What we want can sever us from primary desire. When we obtain material wants, we usually –after a brief experience of pleasure –want more. We go back to being dissatisfied.

But what we what want is not a material item, we can begin to understand who we are.  

Does this make sense?

What you want reveals who you are.

If you want a child, family, riches and fame, that tells you what is fundamentally important to you.  

For most of us, even the most religious, what we want has a little to do with religion or ideology.

Our belief systems are simply scaffolding over reality, not foundations.

We find the belief (or it is given to us and we never question it) that we share with our community, and we know it as vague metaphorical narratives, but they have little to do with our everyday experience. We can take  religious narrative and scaffold it over our own lives, but it is not fundamental to how and why we live.

YET the core belief in any spiritual system is some sort of unification with God, an eternal relationship with the source.


Love is unity. 

Love is community.

Love is kind.

Maybe love is the creation of desire, happy, and meaningful.

Love could be what you want to want.

The Perfect Metaphor For What It’s Like To Be a Writer

This morning, sitting in traffic on the freeway, I thought of a great metaphor for being a writer.

You know how when you’re sitting on a plane and it’s about to take off, perhaps it’s moving slowly, and the flight attendant is standing in the middle of the aisle demonstrating the safety procedures?


They tell you how to snap the seatbelt, how to use an oxygen mask.

They always tell you that in the event of losing cabin pressure, an oxygen mask will fall from the top.

And then they say this every single time:

If you have a small child with you, put your mask on first before you put it on the child.

 And I’m almost certain that everybody or almost everybody, like me, is thinking, Hell no!

child ox

I understand the logic of it. If I don’t put on my mask first, I may faint trying to help my baby, but nonetheless my instinct tells me no.

If I have my baby next to me on that seat, I am going to put on her mask first, so if somebody faints it’s not her.

I don’t care if I lose air and pass out. She comes first.

It would be interesting to know how many parents would actually put their mask on first. There’s something fundamental wrong about that idea, even though I know it’s logical and that it’s the “right” idea, in the world of malkuth.

But your love for that baby rises so much higher than established actions.

Your love for your child, your love for the one who is dependent on you is so great that you would give up your life.

Her life is first.

Well, That’s a perfect metaphor for writing.


Because no matter what is happening in the life of a writer, they will put writing first.

If they found they suddenly had a terminal disease and only two months to live, like my friend the poet Andres Montoya, who found out he was going to die when he was 30 years old, they are going to do what he did.

He spent days and nights on his deathbed with a pen and a notepad writing poetry to God, writing letters to family, writing. He had a little time left.

You could read some of the poems he wrote while he was in his deathbed, knowing he was going to die, in his posthumous book a jury of treesby Andres Montoya.

jury of trees

I don’t care how much time a writers has, whether it’s 30 seconds, a minute, or even an hour, a writer is going to put the oxygen mask on their child (their work) before they’re going to worry about whether or not they will faint.

That is to say, that a writer (not all of them) puts writing first.

But THIS ISN’T TO SAY that a writer cannot love their family above all else, their children above all else, their social responsibility above all else; it rather means that all those things they love are encompassed and inseparable from the act of writing.

I have a daughter.

If I was on my death bed, with a month left to live, I’d would probably be writing her letters and stories and poems.


Water is Lazy Or, Why You Always End up With Jerks


I love the boy who made my coffee.

I don’t know his name, and I only saw him once in a London café that I’ll probably never be able to find again, but I’ll never forget him.

I don’t remember what he looks like, but I remember what he said to me.

All week before I had encountered him, I was reading about special relativity for for dummies and it became clear to me that Intuition can be great, that it can often lead you to optimal paths in life, but what is intuitive about nature is not always true.

Intuition cannot describe reality.

A significant example is what Galileo discovered when he dropped two balls of differing weights off the Tower of Pisa. Everyone thought that the heavier ball would reach the ground first.

It makes sense.

It’s intuitive. If you drop a big, heavy rock and you drop a pencil, intuition tells you that the rock would hit the ground first.

Galileo's falling bodies experiment

But, of course, intuition is wrong.

They will hit the ground at the same time. The bigger they are the harder they may fall, but they don’t fall first.

When the first people landed on the moon, they tested this theory with a metal hammer and a feather, because on the moon there would be no wind resistance for the feather, just the gravitational and inertial masses of the object. Sure enough, the hammer and the feather hit the ground at the exact same time.

Here’s a short video of that experiment:

Intuition tells you that if you threw a ball as hard as you could across a field,  it would take longer to reach the ground than if you simply opened your hand and dropped it. But they will hit the ground at the same time.

That week in London I was re-reading some of physics texts, and I saw that Newton punked our intuition by equating gravitational mass and inertial mass.

Easy enough, yes?

But I never understood this idea. I barely graduated with my BA, because of the general math requirement.


I basically know (I think) what gravitational mass is, the mass of an object that will cause it to fall from the Tower of Pisa, yes?

If you drop a rock to the ground, it will be attracted to the larger object, the earth. Small bodies are attracted to larger bodies. The earth is attracted to the sun and orbits the sun, not the other way around.

Here’s some disappointing news to poets:

The sun never sets.

There is only the earth making another revolution around the sun.

Many of the metaphors of physics are accessible to lay people, but inertial mass I couldn’t quite grasp.

Until I met the barista I love.

I went in to order a coffee, which as you know in Europe generally means an espresso, and the barista was a young man in his 20s.

hipster barista
This isn’t really him, just a stock image I found on google image search 🙂 I don’t remember what he looks like.

I imagine he was hip-looking, maybe an earring, a beard, but I remember watching him pack the coffee powder into the metal cup. He smashed it down and down. Packed it good.

packing coffee

Wow, I said, you’re really making sure that the grounds are packed in there.

Yeah, he said, water is lazy.


Water is lazy. If you don’t pack it in there it’ll just find the easiest way to make it through the grounds, and the cup won’t be as pure.

That’s it! That’s inertia!

In Euclidean geometry a geodesic is the shortest and straightest line between two points. Apparently it gets more complex when you’re talking about non-Euclidean geometry of space-time, but for our purposes, it is basically how a body under the influence of a force will find the easiest way to travel.

Bertrand Russell called this “the law of cosmic laziness.”

The apple falls from the tree, straight down to the ground, because it’s too lazy to take any other route. With the earth spinning and the universe expanding faster than the speed of light, why doesn’t the apple go sideways around the earth or up unto the stars? It would be logical to expect the apple to fall away from the tree, since the earth is moving, but it falls straight down, the easiest path to recover its inertia.


Why doesn’t the apple fall far from the tree?

Because it’s easier and shorter to give in to the earth’s gravitational pull and fall straight down on the head of some poor sap sitting underneath the tree than it is to fly off to a destiny of its own choosing.

All objects, including our bodies, are moving through space-time.

Einstein showed us that there is no such thing as space.

There is no such thing as time.

There is only space-time.

One without the other is impossible.

Space is meaningless without time.

If I said, OK, let’s meet at the big rock in the middle of the field, you would understand me.

But you would probably never find me.

I might go there at midnight, under the light of the moon, whereas you might go at 3 PM, under the blazing sun.

Space without time is meaningless.

And time without space is meaningless.

I’ll be some place in five minutes! I say. Hope to see you.

Great, you say. Where will you be?

There is only space-time, and we are moving through it at more or less a constant  velocity.

We have an initial framework, which frames our sense of reality depending on how fast we move through space-time.

If we aren’t moving much through space, like we’re sitting in an armchair with a beer, we are still moving through time at a constant velocity.

lazy dog

That inertia will remain constant unless a force is acted upon us.

Before the apple even falls from the tree, it is moving through space-time at a constant velocity, and now that it is detached from the tree, it doesn’t want to work. It wants to remain at the same velocity.

So it takes the shortest possible path it can.

Straight down.

The easiest path.

The Apple is lazy. And lazy means not wanting to work.

The reason why a heavy object falls at the same time as a lighter object is its resistance to a force acting upon it, that is, the big guy doesn’t want to work anymore than the little guy.

Not to get all Philip Levine on your ass, but let me say What Work Is:


Work happens when a force acts upon mass in such a way that it accelerates it through space-time.

That’s work.

Moving a massive object like a dead body across a floor with force is work.

When I became a college professor, my dad used to tease me. He’d say, “Boy, what you do ain’t real work!”

It wasn’t real work to him, because I wasn’t lifting heavy objects and moving them from one place to another.

But as a writer, I transfer creative energy from my mind to my fingers, which causes them to accelerate and type the words onto my laptop screen, and thus, writing is working.

The heavy sphere would rather say to Galileo, “Please don’t drop me!  I don’t want to work. I’m going to resist as much as possible, because I just want to kick up here on the tower with my homies.”

(I should tell of the day I spent in Pisa, at an outdoor café with a view of the Tower, how I ordered a long lunch, three hours, and went through two bottles of wine and then had an espresso. But it would take a lot of work to write about that, so I’m not going to do it just yet.)

The heavier sphere puts up resistance to gravity, the force that wants it to work, and because it’s heavier than the lighter object, it puts up more resistance than then lighter one.

Newtonian physics argues that the more gravitational mass there is to an object, the stronger the inertia, that is, the objects desire to stay at a constant velocity.

Here’s the elegant formula:


(I think. Like I said, I don’t understand the equations, but I get that they are elegant, that they say a lot in pithy language, mathematical haikus.)

When a heavy object falls , it doesn’t want to change velocity, so its inertial mass will resist the fall, and because it’s heavy, its inertial mass is stronger than the light object’s inertial mass.

A lighter object does not have as much resistance, because it’s not as heavy, and the pull of gravity acts on it more effectively. The inertia and the force equal out, and they hit the ground at the same time.

I’m not a scientist, so I write none of this with authority. I’m just trying to understand the basic concept of inertia and gravity. Just for fun.

So when this London barista told me that water is lazy, a light went on in my head.

Of course, you have to pack the coffee in the espresso maker!

Of course you do!

If you didn’t pack it tight, the water would take the easiest path through the grounds.

water in coffee

It would swirl in between the loose coffee grounds, wherever is the least resistance to change.

But if the barista packs it in hard, the water has no choice but to force its way through the ground into my cup, thus making a more pure coffee.

Water is lazy.

But how does this apply to us? How does this apply to the reason why we always end up with jerks?

I believe:

If a system like physics attempts to describe reality, we should be able to extract the metaphors and apply them to any system’s attempt to describe reality.

Like Blake says, All religions are the same.

A system that describes Reality, Truth, and the Theory of Everything needs metaphor in order to be understood. If those metaphors are close to describing something True, they should describe concepts outside of that metaphorical system.

The Bible teaches, You reap what you sow. The Buddhists might use metaphors around karma. Physicists might say how for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Different metaphors describe the same Truth.

newton every action

Assume we all have an inertial framework, that is, we move through time and space more or less at a constant velocity, only speeding up when there is a force acting upon us.

We wake up in the morning, have coffee, go to work, feed the kids, whatever it is we do, and we get to the point of inertia where we just repeat what we do over and over again at the same speed. We become comfortable with this.

And this could be the case even psychologically, or mentally, the way we think. Many of us do not think outside of our framework, we do not think outside of the reality that we have accepted.

As you age, one of the ways to lose the agility of your brain is to quit reading, or not to read it all, or not to challenge yourself with new, mental work. We want to stay where we are.

And, here’s the kicker:

If you always end up with jerks, that’s why you always end up with jerks.

If we are used to what we have experienced, whether conscious it or not, whether the apple is aware of it or not, we want to take the easiest path, we want to stay within our inertial framework.

One’s inertial frame work seems to determine one’s sense of reality, including the field in which we live, time and space.

If I am on a train moving through the landscape close to the speed of light, and there are no windows indicating that I am moving and there is no acceleration, my inertial framework tells me I am at rest.

If you were standing on the train station platform watching my train pass, your framework tells you that I am moving very quickly and you are at rest.

Our inertial frameworks provide us with our sense of reality and stability.

If we are at a party, and there are many people in the room, when the door opens and a jerk walks in, our initial framework will attract us to that jerk, because it’s the easiest path. We don’t need to work, we just need to repeat or to stay at a constant velocity where we are emotionally and spiritually.

I’m not talking about the brain, the thought, which will tells us we DON’T want to meet another jerk. The brain is an organ, and although we put a lot of value upon it as humans, it’s still part of our physiology, still under the laws of physics, and sometimes the brain is lazy and helps us to remain inert and tells us, This one will be different.

We keep ending up with jerks because it is the easiest path, it is the psychological geodesic.

We keep repeating the same mistakes, even when we complain about them, even when we feel guilty, or feel worthless, and those feelings of guilt and worthlessness become part of our inertial framework, our reality, and that’s where we will stay, unless there is a force that acts upon us.

We resist anything else. We are like a falling object, the heavier our thoughts and emotions and those things that enslave us, the more we resist the change, the force.

But we are fortunate to be humans, because we have the ability to invite forces into our lives!

We can allow forces us to move away from our inertial framework and to make decisions that are more optimal, to stay away from the jerks.

And many amazing people that I know live their lives like this, writers, teachers, construction workers, all across the world people are using forces to get them to accelerate and deaccelerate.

There are synthetic forces such as drugs, but if we use them too often, they become part of our inertial framework, and we stay there for an even longer time. It takes tremendous force to move someone from an addictive framework.

What forces can we invite into our lives to accelerate us outside of our inertial framework?



To believe in something higher, to seek the ultimate source of energy, the great force, the Crown on the Tree of Life.

Meditation is good.

Exercise is good.

Exercise is using a kinetic force to make us work. It is work in addition to what we need to go about our daily lives. It challenges our inertial framework.

Whether we are conscious of it or not, we invite forces into our lives every day.

There are always things in life that cause us to accelerate or deaccelerate, the death of a family member, the flu, a car accident, a department meeting.

boring meeting

These act on us and cause us to move differently, but the variations can be minimal.

And the more we are stuck within an inertial framework, the more these variations will just become a part of it, the predictable unpredictables of life.

Allow a force to act upon you that takes you out of your comfort zone.

Talk to people you would have never thought of talking to before.

Learn a new language.

Challenge yourself.

Find your force, and let the force be with you.

Freewriting is Evil! (But do it anyway)

There was a church in Fresno that believed Freewriting was Satanic.


Obviously, I had to find another church, because I was a writer, and sometimes we can sit down and write without thinking and then suddenly, Snap! We come to, like we’ve been in a trance. We look down on what used to be a white page and we see that we have written a story or a poem in a voice not our own.

It’s an awesome experience, and I’m not giving that up, nor am I willing to attribute such a beautiful part of the creative process exclusively to Satan!

(in the voice of the church lady: Satan!)

church lady

Don’t free write! said the preacher at that church. It’s communication with demons and the dead, and that’s an abomination to the Lord.

I believed it immediately.

Freewriting is communication with the dead.

Yes, Satan is in your pen, but are there also many other types of angels dancing on the head of your pen.

The idea may sound ridiculous, but sometimes ridiculous-sounding things can be true, like, for example, Trump is president.

But just because something sounds ridiculous doesn’t mean it can’t be true, perhaps it’s only that the logic of it is so far removed from our everyday limitations of observation that it seems crazy.

Maybe during freewriting, as you follow the rhythm of your hand moving across the page and you feel the way the pen or pencil slides, scatters, rubs the white (which is perhaps why I write with a gel pen G-2 07, because I like the way it feels so smooth) maybe that kinetic movement influences the rhythm of your language. You go into strange arm and hand convulsions, as if your body was overtaken by a spirit.

hand draw hand

And maybe when you free write, even if you don’t feel the pen in your hand, you hear a voice, and the voice might not be yours, but you follow it and what it writes surprises you.

It could be the voice of a spirit or a ghost, and if you follow it, by any other name, you channel that spirit.

I think most writers have felt this before, and in fact, when Lorca writes about duende fighting against form, I think this is what he means, that demon (spirit, ghost) we channel, that manifestation of duende in our sound tries to pull us away from the form, that is, the content, the meaning, the sum of the elements.

The voice is not made of matter and does not need to be grounded in (imaginary) space.

Every writer knows that the best writing is rewriting, and while we are revising what may have come to us while freewriting, we often need to restrain the voice that brought us into the first draft. Let the energy of that voice push against the language and fill the work with tension, but be careful about letting it out completely.

“Ghosts in our language” is not only a spiritual concept.

It’s logical.

Free writing is communicating with the dead, because voices of other writers swim in and out of your language as you write. Just like known musical riffs can come out during the impromptu jazz sax session, the language of writers we read, most of them dead, come out during freewriting.

On the most logical level, this happens because the languages we’re re using have been around before us, and our own voices are amalgamations of the ones we’ve heard all our lives. And if you’re a writer, you have great writers who have inspired and influenced you to write.

I might be freewriting and a rhythm or voice I’ve heard from another writer comes into my language, for example like this line from Lorca about a boy looking at the moon:

El niño la mira, mira.

El niño la está mirando.

I have often found this rhythm seep into my hand as it moves across the page, and I write its rhythm but not its matter, not its content. It may have nothing to do with matter, so instead of a boy looking at the moon I’m writing about a girl looking at a statue in a garden or I’m writing about how one tree bends into another tree as if wildly in love.

The voices of writers I’ve read come out when I write, and, the fact is, many of them are dead, and even if they are not dead, like one of my favorites, Toni Morrison, their first drafts were influenced by writers who are dead, and those writers were influenced by other dead writes from the past and so on and so on all the way back until the first time language was carved into stone.

On a logical level, writing the first draft puts you in touch with the dead through language, and if you extend that to believing there are realms of reality which we cannot understand with logic, you can say that writing gives us access to parallel worlds, the spirit world, the world of the dead, the world of the imagination, worlds not created with matter but with the pure energy of desire, worlds often more real than the world we think we see and understand.

To quote the Crazy Gypsy, our ancestors are chewing on our fingernails.


I don’t Care What You Did Last Night. Just Write!

This morning I woke dull-headed and didn’t feel like writing, because I had drank wine the night before.

Naturally I wondered about Edgar Allan Poe.


How was he so productive?

I mean, he was an addict and incredibly excessive, what religious people would call a sinner.

He was erratic in his behavior, could dive into the weird, the dangerous, the lecherous.

But Poe was not only a drunk, he was also one of the most influential creative writers in the world.

Blake writes, “Excess leads to the palace of wisdom.”


If you were to enter into Poe’s body of work, you can find the genius. You can see “beyond the veil.”

Poe gets glimpses that few artists ever do and Great artists always do.

He had moments of mystic clarity.


He created stories so astounding that more than a hundred years later we still enter into those nightmares. Many of his fantastic images have become part of our shared consciousness, have become archetypes.

Who can forget the first time they read “The Telltale Heart,” someone murdering an old man stuffing his body in the floorboards, and imagining he hears his heart beating louder and louder.

Oh, how our inner lives are stubborn to reflect our outer landscape!


This is Swedenborg. This is Schopenhauer. This is confirmed by so many systems.

What led Poe “beyond the veil” was writing his imagination.

No matter what he was doing in life, no matter how many people he was causing pain to, he took time to imagine. And Write.

He looked at the stars and he imagined. And then he wrote it down.

He thought about the cosmos.

For fun, he read books on religion (for reading is writing), science, and he played with the ideas he encountered, and they became part of the way he saw a reality.

But seeing beyond the veil is NOT limited to the mystic.

Physicists strive to see beyond the veil as well.

Here’s where physics and Poe come together.

Obler’s Paradox.

Consider the universe:


There are stars out there so much stronger than our sun, and there are billions and billions of them shining into space.

So why is the nighttime sky dark on earth?

In my non-scientific way to explain it (please look it up so cosmologists can explain it more accurately) our solar system is tiny, the sun only eight light minutes away, and there are stars out there so much stronger than our sun. There are billions and billions of them shining into space, so we should be able to see that light from earth.

Why is the nighttime sky dark on earth?

It didn’t make sense to the cosmologists.

Why was night not intense light?

They debated this paradox for many years, but the one who figured it out was Poe, in a poem called “Eureka.”

He argued that light from those stars didn’t reach us yet, because they’re so far away. The light hasn’t traveled here yet; it’s still on its way.

The universe is young, he suggests.

And he was right.

The scientist and the poet strive to see.

Poe took time to observe and think.

He spent a lot of time staring into the sky. And in spite of what he did all night long, he wrote the next day.

Just to be clear: my point isn’t that you, writer, are exempt from codes of behavior, so get drunk, be excessive.

My point is: Imagine. Write. Cast your bread across the waters.

At least I managed to write something this morning.