Saturday 23 November 2013

Passive or Aggressive

I know everyone is dysfunctional but I rather begin friendships with people who are the more passive kind that aggressive kind, because I can help them become more assertive, brave and honest, and they see can easily see the benefits.  People who are at the other polarity are less likely to change in my experience because using the hammer seems to "get things done" - they often get what they want from being aggreessive, it's harder to see what they are missing out on, what they are destroying in the process of being aggressive.

Thursday 14 November 2013

the memory of his words

The memory of his words blaze and incinerate a brand in my heart. "It doesn't matter how long we stay together because we are growing with each other right now. The gifts you give to me and that I give to you will last the rest of our lives, that say you'll always be a part of me and I'll always be a part of you." Something like that. They seemed so positive, warm, life-affirming at the the time. Now scars seething tar into the cogs of my compassion, grinding their machinations to a halt.

Tuesday 1 October 2013

Exploiting the State


The state is not an effect of capitalism, but because the state exists capitalists will exploit it because the state is the only institution that can pass regulations. Were this not the case, Starbucks would lobby McDonalds, and McDonalds would lobby Coca Cola who were lobbying Microsoft. None of these companies are allowed the use of force, but because of this unique trait - the ability to regulate - it would be the end of any capitalist who had the capacity not to make use of this privilege so long as they had competitors who were willing to do so. These conflicts of interest are foundational to the system in place.

Supposing I am the CEO of a rich corporation and I have $1,000,000 to spend developing my business,

One of my options is to spend that money doing R&D, improving the product, employing highly trained staff, bringing our a better version, or something related which amounts to offering a better service to the consumer. I could also try to advertise it to people I hope will be willing to buy it.

Supposing as a consequence of whatever one of these things I choose to do, then my revenues rise by $1,200,000 then, ok, great! My customers are happier and I have made $200,000

But...

Supposing I can use the $1,000,000 to lobby the state, and they will pass preferential regulations to favour my company, or they will give me other kickbacks or benefits worth - lets say- $1,500,000, then this poisons the whole economy because now I have MORE incentive to engage in bribery and corruption than on pleasing my customers.

I would do this, not because I was evil, but because I was rational. In fact, if I failed to do it I might well be competed out of the market by an actor who did not. Poorer or less established companies cannot do what I just did and so they are a disadvantage against the giants in industry so long as there is a state and the state can be lobbied.

By this process of "unnatural selection" the most successful firms become, not those who are able to best serve their customers, but those who are best able to play the system to get privileges from the government.  And it's not necessarily for the evil of all would-be congressmen or parliamentarians either! Even a somewhat integerous politician, who wants to hold office to push through the "least-bad" legislations can only get away with so much before industries begin to back a more complicit candidate to replace them. They really will go to any lengths to retain their special privileges, however unjust, because their livelihoods depend on them.

Perhaps the only solution is making it impossible for politicians to dish out public funds to special interest groups from the public purse, but for this to even be achievable people must be aware of this problem of incentives.

According to The Sunlight Foundation $5.8 billion were spent on federal lobbying and campaign contributions by America’s 200 most politically active corporations between 2007 and 2012.  For every dollar they spent buying politicians they got $741 in return.



If someone in a business commits a crime they don't get arrested for it because they have this thing called a corporation which takes the blame.

The corporation gets sued, which  means the customers pay more and potentially the employees get paid less.

Making the corporation culpable instead of the individuals responsible for making the decisions
removes the moral hazard from the individuals  implicated in the unlawful or anti-social behaviour. That's why we see corporation getting away with doing all these horrible things: oil spills, bad bank loans, environmental hazards,

If the individuals personally responsible were at risk of losing their own assets, including their houses - the way an individual who gets sued or fined is - we would ind them far less likely to take these risks.

Sunday 15 September 2013

What is the difference between Left and Right anarchism?

Left anarchism, which was the common usage of the term up until recently, is a political philosophy very closely related to communism, with the central socialist principle that workers should own the means of production. Having bosses run businesses or capitalists own the means of production is considered to be expploitative and hierarchical, wheras right anarchists see these relationships as acceptible so long as they are voluntary: if employees can agree to contractual terms, quit any time they like, unionise except where probhibited by voluntary agreements, etc. it is considered that the bosses are providing value by organising the work force, and capitalists are providing value by anticipating the market, organising production in terms of demand, and risking their investment (and also their property where uninsured, as the state would not exist to give them limited liability in the form of a Ltd. corporation  or Plc.) Right anarchists are not opposed to workers owning their own workplaces as long as this is organised by mutual agreements and voluntary interactions rather than imposed by violations of property rights (eg. workers getting a loan from the bank to buy out bosses and owners.)

Right anarchism is a more recent development but it can also be traced back to Baukunin who is seen as influential to both schools as an anarchist. It's more of an extension of American libertarianism, with the central principle being the NAP - ie. Thou shalt not initiate the use of force - no violence or theft, including taxation, as a rule, although levies for public goods could be extracted through a system of social pressure, ostracism, and refusal to engage in collective buying for people who did not pay their share (eg. If you don't pay your share for street lights you can expect to have to make your own arrangements for garbage collection as well.) Government regulation would similarly be be replaced by a system of insurance companies or cooperatives (often referred to as DROs - dispute resolution organisations) who were financially incentived to solve problems before they occurred instead of being called upon to respond after the fact (like police, government fines, universal sick care, fire fighters, climate taxes etc. and all government services which are called upon only when a problem has all ready arisen.) These companies would lose money through payouts when they failed to protect their clients from harm or loss of property, which would encourage them to develop preventative measures and disincentives to criminals which would be constantly optimised through competition on the free market - whichever organisation was most effective as preventing harm or loss would gain the greatest market share, if someone advanced on their developments they would become lucrative, and if any such company got "too big for its boots," or abused its authority, its clients would have the option to pick another service provider, rather than remain at the behest of a state monopoly for provision of this service.

Left anarchism tends to focus more on problems of capital and capitalism, much like state socialists do. Right anarchists tend to talk primarily about the problems of statism, those which are created or exacerbated by governemnt, and they therefor tend to have the most convincing arguments for the abolition of states.


Despite coming from different angles, both agree that the state is based on force or the threat of force for its existence, that the state is a tool wielded by the ruling class for unfair advantage over everyone else, and that corporations and corporatism are products of statism which allow the rich to privilege from privatizing gains and socialising losses, which is immoral.

All forms of anarchists acknowledge that where there are rulers there can be no rules, as rulers by their very nature, make themselves the exception to the rule. Anarchists are egalitarians, no special privileges for law-makers or corporations. If you kill, harm, steal, or damage someone else's property, you are to be held personally liable for it - not the state (tax payer) or corporation (consumer/share-holder) - you personally. There is to be no hiding behind institutions which are mere abstractions of the mind in anarchy. This implementation of this moral hazard for the privileged is meant to do away with much of the corruption, cronyism, and war crimes which are part and parcel of statist societies.

So some common ground between the two despite philosophical difference on very key points.

For example, left wing ideals such as workers running their workplaces are thought by some to be more likely under right anarchism that statism, since the public education system trains children for individualism and competition, but the evidence on how individuals learn best is in favour of a cooperative learning environment. Without the kind of schooling which is prevalent and imposed by the state (which right anarchists are strongly opposed to) children would be raised with lots of experience of cooperation and mutualism, and so would more likely to create workplaces that capitalised on those skills than top-down hierarchies which follow the prevalent pattern of schooling and parenting.

Sunday 1 September 2013

Discourse on Necessity



 on retreat 01/09/13

There has been a lot of talk in this circle about needyness.
Bu what about needed-ness? Is that not more important? To know that we are needed? 

Perhaps when we reflect upon this a question arises inside us: Do I really need to be needed or do I just think I do? Perhaps I shouldn’t have to feel like I am needed and that is just my insecurity talking or my ego trying to make itself important. 

Perhaps you do not even feel the need to be needed and think me projecting the fruit of my own self-examination onto you.

Needed perhaps comes from the same root as necessary. We love to know that we are needed, because we are. And since we are, better then, that it is necessary for us to be. That we serve some purpose.

The universe, in its perfection, wastes nothing - recycles everything, thus by its very nature all that exists must serve some purpose. To know that we are is in to know that it is necessary for us to be. Should we cease to be necessary then we are surrendered to the oneness of all things, just as leaves become the soil, which becomes the fruit, which becomes the pray, which becomes the predator, and so forth.

A conscious surrender, in eastern traditions, is known as liberation, escape from samsara, or the path to enlightenment.
Should we choose this surrender to a life in service of the whole then even death is welcomed as a gift. We have already surrendered our life and so nothing remains to be taken from us. We are all going to die, and so it is better we learn to welcome it. 

An unconscious surrender is known as samsara, some believe this leads us to be born and reborn again in our habits into the material world of cause and effect, but it can be understood by the skeptic as a lack of willingness to change which leads us to have several similar unpleasant experiences occur and reoccur ad infinatum until we examine ourselves to find the root of the problem.

The practice of self-knowledge reveals to us our qualities, our qualities reveal to us our purpose, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the purposes from which we can choose to serve. Knowing our purpose shows us our value, which satisfies our need to be needed.

Monday 19 August 2013

Kids Today

Saying that "kids today are out of control" is kind of like referring to the victim of domestic abuse as "jittery." Well, perhaps they are jittery, but we have no way of knowing until they are in a neutral, nurturing environment where we can see what they are really like.

Friday 16 August 2013

The Critic: Burning Out at Festivals.

Sometimes when you have seen average show after average show it becomes hard to tell if something is really bad, or you are just bored of mediocrity. One begins to merge into the other. In this instance a great show is an oasis in the dessert which brings you back to your senses. See one as soon as possible if you want to savour any hope of remaining objective and judicious. Take recommendations if you have to, read other reliable critics to know what to go to. It is essential to have this nourishment to keep your writing fresh, if not your sanity!

Thursday 15 August 2013

Star Ratings

At best star ratings can be considered a necessary evil.

They not only de-emphasise the content of the review, including any constructive feedback, but they say nothing about how, why or to whom something is good, excellent or poor - not to speak of the grounds upon which something is being judged, nor by which measure stick or what parameters.A four star show on the professional stage is a five star show on the amateur one.

Everything must be judged in its appropriate context, and something may seem more or less pore in comparison to similar works, or the time and place where it is being written or performed. The body of a review leaves some space to give some of this context, but a star rating does nothing of the kind.

There is much difference between a "very good" 3* show and a "not poor" one. Likewise there is a breadth between a truly excellent 4* and one that made it because it is clearly  a leap ahead of most of what the 3* shows have been, thus it is the tone of the piece will dictate what side of the star rating the show in on, not the star rating itself.

I'm a Professional

Why does everyone glorify being professional?

Being professional means you can't turn up with a hangover.
Being professional means you can't turn up late.
Being professional means you can't get drunk!
Being professional means you can't sleep with the actress, or the barmaid.
Being professional means you have to get in at a reasonable time.
Being professional means you have to get Up at a reasonable time!
Being professional means - you have to listen here - this is serious!
Being professional means you have to walk the walk like you talk the talk.
Being professional means you have to act like you know what you're doing, even when you don't! Which is most of the time.
Being professional means you have to act like everyone else knows what they're doing, even when they don't! Which is most of the time.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all just Stop!... this glorification of being professional,
then we can all enjoy... being unprofessional together...

- Hold on - oh, shit, sorry, I have to take this. It's a business call.

14/08/13

Wednesday 14 August 2013

Relationship Critic

Once in every critic's Fringe it becomes necessary for them to go out for a drink with the actor of a one man show and his girlfriend to give him extensive feedback on the production, and end up giving the two an impromptu relationship counselling session lasting over an hour when a conflict breaks out. Oh, wait a minute - that's not every critic. That's just me.

Sunday 11 August 2013

How long does it take to become a good critic?

So that's a new record for me. Writing 7 reviews in one sitting.

I reckon it takes writing around 100 reviews before you get the "hang" of it. That is, if you ever truly get the hang of it, which most of us don't think we ever do. At least it's likely to take writing that many before you can be consistently concise, get your point across, say everything that needs to be said, and of course - a most important discipline - to distiguish between what needs to be said and what you just fancy saying (because it's clever, or you noticed, or it's a bugbear, or..., or..., or..., - will the reader care as much as you do?)

Being a critic isn't mostly glamour and fun, what glamour and fun there is comes in exchange for taking care in, and caring about, your writing.

Tuesday 6 August 2013

Fringe 2013

Ahhhhh now this feels like the fringe. One hour between shows and being across the road in Pret a Manger having a filer coffee and trying to sneak in some writing so I have less to do when I get home!!! This is the way it was meant to be for us behind the pen, in a constant state of feeling like we're in a rush.

Friday 2 August 2013

Perspective on "Tough Justice"

People become violent as a result of suffering severe trauma, such as childhood neglect, abandonment or abuse (physical, emotional and/or sexual) --- that is the conclusion of established social science based on the psychological data available to us. 

The latest science on nature versus nurture says that human nature is 70-80% adaptation to environment, particularly early childhood experiences. The idea that "tough justice" ie. inflicting more trauma on an already traumatised/abused individual, will make them better rather than worse, is the result of a primitive kind of thinking, ie. if you do something unpleasant to me then I will do something unpleasant back to you to teach you a lesson. The psychology shows clearly that It Does Not teach them a lesson, it makes them worse because they are now humiliated and want to get revenge. Since the trace of trauma can be tracked in the brain, Brain Scans Of Criminals Can Predict Recidivism (returning to prison.) If we want to rehabilitate criminals we have to understand trauma and learn how to reverse it.

The reason why people continue to believe in "tough justice" even though all the data shows it is a wrong-minded approach to deterring violence, is usually because they were treated punitively as children, exposed to punishments, spanking, "strict-discipline" and told it was "for their own good" - and so looking at the situation clearly for what it is would also ential having to reassess their own childhood for trauma and wounds inflicted on them advertently or inadvertently by their own care-givers. That can obviously be a very painful process for most people.

Harsh corporal punishment produces a dogmatic personality, meaning an inability to adapt and change opinions in light of new information. Evidence shows that people who receive corporal punishment are more likely to support punitive public policies such as the death sentence. These views are psychologically motivated, they are not based on reason and evidence, but avoidance of the suffering entailed in bringing childhood wounds into the conscious awareness so they can be dealt with, the benefit of doing so is being given the opportunity to overcome them, and go from seeing the world through irrational biases to seeing it as it really is.

When prisons were originally introduced as the weapon of choice in the fight against crime we did not know much about how to halt the cycle of prisoners reoffending. Now there are several methods which have shown to be effective. The recent science of rehabilitation shows that criminals who are able to study and attain a masters degree in prison are ecxeedingly unlikely to reoffend. Also, recidivism can be reduced by teaching Transindental Meditation to prisoners, as does teaching prisoners Nonviolent Communication - which stands to reason as in many instances violence is the only way that people who have not been taught to negotiate with others know to get what they want. One study conducted in a Nevada Prison showed that a technological process that appears to help the brain reverse the effects of trauma, Brainwave Optimisation, can rehabilitate violent criminals.

With enough will we can understand and end violence for good.

Tuesday 2 July 2013

The Death of Reason

"People have not the ability to critically thing. People are born with the ability to critically think. People are punished for critical thinking. When you bring criticial thinking to people what you are doing is you are evoking all the punishments they received as children for true critical thinking. So if they were reaised religions, they have questions and they ask those quesitons and they are attacked and mocked and humilated and punished for having those questions. A child who is hit by a mom when the mom says dn't hit has some critical questions to ask of that mother. These are all questions that children that want to ask their parents. I know this for a fact because my daughter is continually asking me these kinds of questions. She is curious about my level of inegrity with the values I put forward. So when I say we don't use aggression to get what we want she is constantly scanning to see if I'm using aggression. She is trying to find out if I have integrity or if I'm just using rules to control her. All hypocrisy results in brutality because the hypocrisy that doesn't enforce itself through hypocrisy doesn't last." - Stefan Molyneux

Saturday 29 June 2013

Staying Happy

In my time here I have found the most indispensible attribute towards maintaining hapiness in life is a conscious discipline of choosing not to view situations, even adverse ones, as oppositional to us, but instead as opportunities to learn specific skills we have have prescribed for ourselves. This attitude frees us from comparing ourselves to any (impossible to acheive) standards of perfection, but instead as students on our journey to mastery. Our awareness is now freed to view the effects of our actions empirically as we assess "what is happening here? what did I leanr? what would I do next time to acheive better results?" We begin growing into life instead of experiencing it as a never ending serries of challenges that undermine our sense of adequacy.

Tuesday 4 June 2013

alien ambassador

In my dream I was an ambassador from an alien species. I landed near a school which was almost empty apart from a couple of adults whom I seemed to think were part of the government. I kept referring to each of them respectfully as the 'minister for -' ... 'is the minister for education such-and-such?' whatever I assumed their position was. Some guy kept taking me around the corridors, I wanted to see the right people and speak to them but he kept prevaricating by doing that. Inhabiting this character was interesting because he was very benevolent, I could tell that on his planet the government was really there to do for people, they really cared. He probably would have been very upset if he ever found out what it was like on earth. It was interesting feel that way or that that was even possible from as an anarchist.

Thursday 2 May 2013

my prayer

I forgive my sins
I accept my shortcomings
I give of myself what I am prepared to give - in the moment - I am prepared to give it

I open my hands to the fruits of life
I open my eyes to the consequence of my actions
I open my mind to the truth and to reason
I open my heart to love and be loved
I open my soul to the passion of purpose
I open my fate to forge my own path

I surrender myself to the oneness of all things
In the unity of all I am truly my own.

Antony Sammeroff 2/5/13

Wednesday 13 February 2013

tired of being the bigger person


I get tired of being the bigger person.
I could be the biggest person, the fittest person, the richest person.

I'm admired for being more wired
than a business person.

That hires and fires the working person.

but I'm tired,
of being the bigger person.

I'd rather be the person that's worse than
a pig
in person

a wicked person


who casts aspersions 
on this disertion
as a subversive incursion:

The coercion of aversion as a diversion from the exertion I spent in this immersion of perversion.

I'm a bitter person!

Watch my conversion into disparate dispersion
my submersion in reversion
to a state that's immersed in
sin


I could be the tallest at the show, bro.
But don't you know, I'd still be tired.
Tired of being the bigger person.

Tuesday 12 February 2013

Excerpt from the self-help book I'm writing


from "The Healthy Emotion Expression Handbook."

Preface

“Healthy Emotional Expression.”

What a wholesome sounding phrase!

We would all want what is healthy for us, of course, and yet embedded in the idea that there is a “healthy” way to express our emotions is also the suggestion that there is also an “unhealthy” way to express them as well.

I imagine that way is something that we’re all very familiar with. We have all been exposed to unhealthy emotional expression at some point, and most of us have been guilty of it ourselves. Shouting, berating others, blaming them for how we feel, making judgments of them, calling them names, being vicious or even violent. These are all tragic ways we try to express hurt feelings in order to encourage others to change their ways, and yet more often than not they do more to harm than to help.

These approaches to self-expression erode the good will within our relationships, and make it less likely for other people to willingly help us meet our goals. Even if we can convince others to do what we want in these ways they are unlikely to do so happily. They may help grudgingly, with lingering feelings of resentment - and resentment is relationship carcinoma.

If we would all want what is healthy for us why would we continue to express ourselves in these unhealthy ways?

For all too many of us these are the only types of emotional expression we have the chance to bear witness to as children, and if we don’t replicate the model for self-expression we inherited we are as likely to: “If that’s what expressing feelings looks like then expressing feelings is not something I want to have any part of at all!”

Some refuse to express their emotions because they perceive it as a weak thing to do! (Nothing could be further from the truth – sometimes it takes extreme strength to express oneself honestly when it seems dreadfully scary to do so!)

Others don’t like expressing themselves honestly because they feel vulnerable, are afraid of intimacy, or within their history expressing how they felt in the ways they knew how scared potential partners or friends away.

In other cases our feelings were invalidated as children. “Don’t get angry.” “Life’s like that, you take the good with the bad, keep your chin up.” Or, “Stop crying, don’t be a baby” (which is the biological equivalent of telling a child not to urinate, because tears clear impurities out of the system.)

Or perhaps the feelings of our primary caregivers took precedence over our own, and our needs were seen as an inconvenience, and so we quickly learned not to feel anything at all!

How then may we have learned to identify what was going on inside us so we could express our preferences in ways which would help others to help us to meet our goals? How could we effectively offer others our willingness to help them meet their goals too, and develop the kind of fulfilling relationships that arise out of reciprocity, mutual trust and respect?

In the worst of circumstances, it holds true that in an abusive situation it is often safer not to feel anything at all than to feel all the effects of our abuse there and then. This is the mind’s defense against hopelessness. It learns to master the emotions by turning them off, and in doing so ensures its safety in the short term.

Sadly though, when we grow older and have the ability to remove ourselves from abusive situations these defense mechanisms do not always deactivate themselves lightly.

It seems all too true that if we were not shown a model of healthy emotional expression to follow then it is something we need to learn of our own volition, as adults, in the same way that were we not exposed to French as children it is something we would need to take it upon ourselves to learn.

Often our feelings are there to keep us safe, to teach us what we want out of life and about the way we think, to warn us away from those who might harm us, and draw us towards those who are nurturing and make our lives wonderful.

We are better not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This book forms a concise guide on how to use your emotions rather than let them use you. 

Saturday 9 February 2013

Why doesn't beef cost 7 times as much as grains?

If it takes 7 times as much grain to create the same amount of beef, so why isn't beef 7 times as expensive as grain? Because the vast majority of farming subsidies go to meat and dairy farmers. In other words we are forced to pay for the mistreatment of animals whether we can conscience it or not. Fruits an vegetables have increased in price faster that other products and they are the building blocks of health, while confectionaries have gone down in price in real terms and they destroy the quality of life. If we could end these subsidies the whole society would be healthier, we would also save NHS money on preventable illnesses that could be allocated to those who still needed it. What is more, Western agricultural subsidies for domestic farmers have been a horrendous catastophe for the poor in the developing world, because excess produce is dumped there putting their own producers out of a livelihood and building their own economy. Crazy world we live in, where money is shifted from the people to self-interest groups at the point of a gun, despite the harm it does to the whole of society.

Monday 4 February 2013

To Your Friends on Spanking


Dear friends. You have talked to your friends about the injustice of war, I am sure. And you've talked about gay marriage. And you have talked about austerity measures and cuts. Have you spoken to your friends about the effects of spanking on children? Many of your friends share the same views with you on politics, and none of us are policy makers, but many of us will have children or care for children. Are they aware that 93% of studies on spanking agree that it is harmful to children, which has been referred to as"an almost unheard of consensus" in child-rearing studies? Are they aware that according to the last 20-30 years of science children who are physically punished even mildly:
- Tend to have a lower IQ and are less able to reason effectively.
- Have a poorer relationship with their parents than those who are reared non-aggressively.
- Are more likely to resort to violence as a means of solving problems and even become chronically defiant.
- Are more likely to smoke and twice as likely develop alcohol/drug addictions.
- Are more likely to develop anxiety disorders and depression and show symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
- Are more likely to display anti-social behaviour and abuse their spouse or children later in life?

So they know that spanking ups the risk of major depression by 41%, drug abust by 59% and mania by 93% amongst other effects.

We can really make the world a better place by bringing up these questions in our social circles with references to the scientific evidence and also speaking about the alternatives to spanking which have been proven to be of psychological benefit to children and sociological benefit to society. Thanks, and please consider this before you next go out for a pint with your pals.

Tuesday 22 January 2013

A Love Poem


I
My Dear One,

I come before you not as a beggar, to plead for your favour,

But as a wealthy man who, though born with very little, worked tirelessly to cultivate his riches, 
if only to know the pleasure of sharing that which he had never known.

My treasures, of course, are not material in nature, 
but they are as true, and more valuable, in my humble estimation, 
than those material things.

II
My own,

I offer you my virtue,
I offer you my strength, and even in doing so my vulnerability, 
(a small part of my courage, which you are also entitled to the entirety of.)
I offer you my honour, and also my desire.

I offer you all the kindness, warmth, 
and empathy of a heart that beats only to know love and to love.

I offer you that love, and that heart, 
with passion, and all the tenacity you have seen me show.

I offer you, of myself, all that I have to give,
In all my worthiness, and all my shortcoming,
And pledge to bring with it all the excitement and creativity 
which you have expressed your appreciation for so far.

III
You may not always find such qualities easy to come by,
And where they are found, offered with so little reservation,

But please do not be intimidated if I seem unreasonably brazen,

I credit this fact, 
that all you have to bring will always be shown to have at least as great a value as the eye that cares to look is keen, and never any less. 
(And as you are aware, I have regarded you with rather a keen eye ;) )

Wherefore? But on the account that there is so much to look to! 

In my sight, it would appear we have much to offer one another.

IV
What I ask of you in this respect, 
Is not to give, but only to share 
with me that which you already have in abundance,

Your own passion,
Your integrity,
Your sentiments and feelings,
                Opinions and insights,
                Thoughts and emotions,
Your curiosity, and sense of humour,
Your tenderness, and also your fortitude,
As much honesty as you can muster, 
                as and when you are ready to offer it,
All those qualities you have long since known I love and admire in you,
And adore you for.

To give of yourself, as and when is pleases you,
Whatsoever it pleases you to give,
In whatever measure it pleases you to give it,
And show me who you are,
In all your worthiness, and all your shortcoming.

V
Should you be willing to attempt this exchange,
As you know I am most certain that you should,
I will not give you reason to regret it,
Not for a single day,
Not even for a moment if I can help it,

Do not reject such a ‘wholesome’ offer lightly,
Such opportunities are rare to find, and rarer still are they ever realised,

Let us inspire ourselves with what could be possible,

Forever at your service,
Forever in your awe,

With love, and the deepest of affection,

Antoine.