Speaking without being present

I am sitting in my car with the window open, fields and trees surround me, I am reading a book. At a high sharp melodious sound I raise my head and spy an unknown bird perched in a little bush singing. The phrase ‘it’s dulcet tone’ immediately presents itself to my consciousness, a turgid cliché, why do old saws like this spring readily to mind?

As a fully formed phraselet it requires no effort, as though it is passed up through the levels of consciousness from some copious storage area, wrapped-up, unviewed and thus somehow achieving a weightlessness which needs no putting forth of mental vitality or expenditure of thought to bring to light.

And so perhaps in these forms of articulation I am almost absent or like some lazy customs official waving through unchecked freight.

What do you See when you read?

Do you imagine when you read- I mean do you consciously see, in your minds eye, the scenes of a novel of the schematics of an abstract discussion. Does your imagination throw up, unbidden the landscapes and habitations that the characters dwell in, do diagramatic representations insist upon you whilst scanning some rarified textbook?

And if so do you regard this as normal, un-noteworthy?

For me this is usually absent in my reading, I have the ability but it is not something that I naturally employ, I must force myself to see the inner screen. It takes effort, it actually tires the brain noticably, but it is very rewarding. My comprehension is vastly improved, the speed I read at increases, my concentration reaches a zenith, enjoyment skyrockets, memory telescopes.

It really is the only way to read properly.

I believe the ancients had a much greater capacity for this than we have, I base this belief on certain clues that I have come across in my reading of the classics. I think their 'inner-world' was more vivid, compelling and immediate to the consciousness than ours has become- we have inherited the hardware but have let the skill atrophy. The reason of course is our reliance on external stimulation

Grasping the Dog's Paw

Warm and malleable and surprisingly rough on the pads, I love the feel of a dog's large dry paw- notwithstanding the fact that most dogs don't like you handling them. There's one obvious reason for a dogs lack of inclination which I suppose is hardwired: their wild cousins would quickly die if anything happened to one of their legs. Evolution has made it a gut reaction to withdraw a paw when it is enclosed, a reaction, only overcome if the particular dog respects or admires the grasper.

But there is another reason too. Dogs paws are a curious combination of rough and sensitive. The rough pads, which are thick enough to withstand the rigours of a rambling life are divided by soft hairs which can gauge with sensitivity the ground that is traversed. These hairs are something analogous to the poison filaments on a stinging nettle in that their sensitivity varies in inverse proportion to strength of grasp. Dogs are remarkably ticklish and squeamish concerning these hairs if you touch them gently. Like the nettle you must assay a direct, firm approach if you want to maintain grip.

Still, it doesn't stop me from wanting to shake paws with most friendly dogs I come across, I have a desire to promote inter-species communication, I've all but given up on talking to my own kind.

Death By Compass Reversal

Apparently our North/ South magnetic poles are long overdue for a change about and that when this interesting event occurs the Earth's surface will be exposed to a severe raking from cosmic rays. It seems that the magnetosphere's repellent force has largely been the barrier which hitherto has protected the surface from this event.

What will that mean for terrestrial denizens- toast, I'm afraid.

One doesn't hear much about this particular doomsday scenario, no it's all "Near-Earth-Objects" and Bird 'Flu- I haven't heard a Lembit Opic promouncement on this topic yet, his only concern, other than sundry cheeky girls, is death by asteroid.