Can't see the Trees for the Wood - Do You Believe in Love at first Type? - In the Beginning was the Word - Guesswork and Speculation

Can't see the Trees for the Wood

In 1546 in John Heywood's 'A dialogue Conteynyng the Nomber in Effect of all the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue.' He wrote 'Plentie is no deinte, ye see not your owne ease. I see, ye can not see the wood for trees. (That's their way of spelling those words, not mine ;) 'In 1583, Brian Melbancke, in 'Philotimus: the Warre Betwixt Nature and Fortune,' wrote: 'Thou canst not or wilt not see wood for trees.'

"Too beset by petty things to appreciate the greatness or grandeur; too wrapped up in details to gain a view of the whole".

That's where all are right now and who could blame you? Let's face it the petty things in life are pretty convincing and consuming, until you make time to step back...

Do You Believe in Love at first Type?

Had a wonderful, refreshing, enlightening chat with someone online the other day. I managed to convince her that the milk of human kindness still exists, she made me feel like a Million Dollars. Now I've got to save up so that I can go to Miami to visit... ;)

In the Beginning was the Word

Words create. Don't believe me? Never been insulted or argued with someone and then spent hours going over and over what was said? Recrimination and rumination is still creation as is imagination. That's where everything begins. If you can't imagine it, it doesn't exist for us...

Until someone gives a new thing a name, does it exist?
Until a new concept can be described, does it exist?
To do that you must create a new word or words.
In the beginning was the Word...

Guesswork and Speculation

The accepted version of History is the one that we know from what still persists. It is changed constantly as new old things are discovered (assuming they agree with what the scholars already think in most cases). So what we know of the past is constantly being updated, old versions are forgotten and we teach our kids the new ones. The Dark Ages? No such thing, just an absence of an historical context to place the evidence into, to describe the old world. Because we don't have enough details to clear the picture up, it's always going to be murky and up for grabs.

The accepted scientific dogma is what we know now, based on the theories and speculation of the day. The world is no longer flat, the Moon not made of cheese. What we think we know now is our best guess. Nothing more, nothing less, than that. Guesswork...

So what do we actually know beyond a reasonable doubt?

What we feel...

Light &
Love
Jon
x