He got divorced as he could not bear Lynn

Photo0373 3.jpg
Image from watercolour by  author

He got divorced as he could not bear Lynn
He could not roam
He was such a rotter,damn
Some flew,Hugh trekked
Could you cope in Argon?
He stole Joanna’s berg.
He leads her by the nose.
He was too loose for her.
I envy Enna.
The hamster,damn..
He kept his head in Bury.
And as glass goes, he went.
He’s done Dee already
Don’t tell Aviv.
How about we go Haifa?
I will not love  a man till I can sail  to Gaza   without asking ,Is Raoul in?
Who is Ray ‘ell?
Don’t Bask all night, we can’t leave Kat alone here.
Oh,my pyre knees.
I can’t bear new yolk eggs.
Why not dun caster?
It’s Hull here.

Not tonight

Photo0390.jpgNot tonight,I’ve lost my wisdom tooth
That’s about six you’ve lost since we got engaged.How many jaws have you got?

Not tonight,I feel blue
You look red to me!

Not tonight,I am reading the Bible
Doesn’t it tell you a wife must obey her husband?
Is that rape if you order me about?
It depends on whether you like it
I do like it sometimes
But when?
That’s what I am wondering.

Not tonight,I am writing a poem
A  limerick?
A postmodern mimic’s life
If you’d told me your IQ was 189 I’d never have married you.
But  it’s not 189
That’s what they all say.

Not tonight I am sleeping with the cat
Can I not join in?

Not tonight I have toothache
My glands swelled so I can’t tell
Surely you can open your mouth?
I’m too fastidious.
Well,can you eat?
I’d love a  piece  of cake.
Can I bribe you?
I doubt it.I am too scrupulous.
I’ll give you a new car
I can’t drive
Why not?
I  like the man to drive.
I see.But  if you won’t open the door he can’t get in
Why, is it  locked?
Probably but I might get lucky
You’re worse than Leonard Cohen.
I didn’t know you slept with him.
Well. it looked like him.
Maybe a daydream.
I could have danced all night but I was marking the algebraic topology exam

Not tonight,dearest,I have to gargle with salt water




“The phrase “carpe diem,” from a quote by Horace, means “seize the day,” and is often used to describe persuasive poetry designed to convince the object of the poet’s desire to make love—for time is short, as the argument goes, and anything might happen. Other arguments range from the existential to the absurd, and poets make their points persistently in an astounding variety of ways, using every metrical and technical device to show off their wit and prowess. Perhaps the most famous example is Robert Herrick’s poem, “To the Virgins, Make Much of Time” where he begins, “Gather ye rosebuds while ye may.” Another famous example is Andrew Marvell’s argument in “To His Coy Mistress,”

Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am’rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapp’d power.
Let us roll all our strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one ball;
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life.
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

The form has inspired both imitations and satires. In reply to Christopher Marlowe’s shepherd, who begged his nymph to “Come live with me and be my love,” Sir Walter Raleigh let his nymph knowingly reply:

If all the world and love were young,
And truth in every shepherd’s tongue,
These pretty pleasures might me move
To live with thee and be thy love.

The companion piece to the carpe diem poem might well be the aubade, a form in which the poet begs his lover to stay in bed and mourns the rising of the sun because it means that they must part. John Donne’s poem, “The Sun Rising,” is one of the earliest examples:

Busy old fool, unruly Sun,
Why dost thou thus,
Through windows, and through curtains, call on us?”

True stories

DSC00069 (1) 2.jpgWhen I was  28 my husband bought me a tin of lavender wax polish for my birthday.
After 45 years of  marriage I found he liked me mainly because of my beauty ‘[?]
When I was recovering from a serious operation ,he said,You are not very house proud, are you?
When he was  near death he slept a lot  in an armchair by my side.One afternoon he woke up and said in a very loud voice:
You’ve got a brilliant personality.
Then he went to sleep again.
When we were first married we were out in the country.We were in a lane with steep grassy banks so we lay down at the top and rolled down!
He rarely noticed if I went to the hairdresser until I had it cut very very short.He was annoyed because when it was long he liked to brush it in the evening.He could have tickled me with a feather duster instead but he refused.I didn’t have a feather duster but I am sure I could have bought one.
He used to bring me a cup of tea  in bed until he could hardly walk.
After I  had an eye operation I had no  glasses for 6 months and for 3 months I had gas in my right eye so it was blind.We were  in the car, approaching a junction and he said,Which way do I turn? I said,talk about the blind leading the blind
Just after that a friend rang up and said she was very upset she had to wear glasses.How horrible it was.I couldn’t  see. even with  glasses.It made me learn how self centred we are much of the time.
My husband was very humorous.He could imitate politicians so maybe it’s  a good thing he has gone.He would not have believed the last 3 years in the world.

The end of the lamp

Photo0359The lamp is still in pieces as I stare
The shade leans  like a cripple, like myself
It shows the place that we should never bare

I may be wrong to let my mind be lured
In thinking to restore this ancient wealth
The lamp is still in pieces as I stare

This lamp is not a lamp as it can’t share
The light it should throw on our human stealth
It shows the loss that I don’t want to  bear

Is love  for ever,  does it need our care?
Or should we rid ourself of what it tells?
The lamp is still in pieces as I stare

I harmed myself by cutting off my hair
What I have to  offer would not sell
I feel the loss that I don’t want to  bear

A female Oedipus, a myth  unfolds
The truth can blind as well as any nail
The lamp is still in pieces as I stare
It shows a place that  is no longer there


How do you go insane? Shame can be a trigger

This photo was in Russia Today

I found this on Quora

You don’t go insane. Usually it is a combination of genes that predispose you to act in certain ways under certain circumstances, together with circumstances that provide the proper stresses needed to activate those genes that causes people to behave in ways that others deem to be insane.

Shame makes people feel bad about themselves. If they have a genetic predisposition for mental illness, being shamed, either by others or by yourself, can push you into mental illness. Most of us have been raised by parents and teachers who use shame to try to get us to behave the way they want us to.  Shame does enormous damage to some people. It’s probably not a good way to correct anyone at any time, but for some people, it is disastrous. They internalize the shame and start to feel like they are worthless and unlovable, and this is what pushes them to do unusual things to get along in life. When people behave in unusual fashions, others will say they are mentally ill.

The sunk cost fallacy or “let bygones be bygones”




!The Misconception: You make rational decisions based on the future value of objects, investments and experiences.

The Truth: Your decisions are tainted by the emotional investments you accumulate, and the more you invest in something the harder it becomes to abandon it.”


” Kahneman says organisms that placed more urgency on avoiding threats than they did on maximizing opportunities were more likely to pass on their genes. So, over time, the prospect of losses has become a more powerful motivator on your behavior than the promise of gains. Whenever possible, you try to avoid losses of any kind, and when comparing losses to gains you don’t treat them equally. The results of his experiments and the results of many others who’ve replicated and expanded on them have teased out a inborn loss aversion ratio. When offered a chance to accept or reject a gamble, most people refuse to make take a bet unless the possible payoff is around double the potential loss.

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely adds a fascinating twist to loss aversion in his book, Predictably Irrational. He writes that when factoring the costs of any exchange, you tend to focus more on what you may lose in the bargain than on what you stand to gain. The “pain of paying,” as he puts it, arises whenever you must give up anything you own. The precise amount doesn’t matter at first. You’ll feel the pain no matter what price you must pay, and it will influence your decisions and behaviors.

In one of his experiments, Ariely set up a booth in a well-trafficked area. Passersby could purchase chocolates – Hershey’s Kisses for one penny a piece or Lindt Truffles for fifteen cents each. The majority of people who faced this offer chose the truffles. It was a fine deal considering the quality differences and the normal prices of both items. Ariely then set up another booth with the same two choices but lowered the price by one cent each, thus making the kisses cost nothing and the truffles cost 14 cents each. This time, the vast majority of people selected the kisses instead of the truffles.

If people acted on pure mathematical logic, explained Ariely, there should have been no change in the behavior of the subjects. The price difference was the same. But you don’t think in that way. Your loss aversion system is always vigilant, waiting on standby to keep you from giving up more than you can afford to spare, so you calculate the balance between cost and reward whenever possible. He speculates that this is why you accumulate free tchotchkes you don’t really want or need and why you find it so tempting to accept shady deals if they include free gifts or choose decent services that offer free shipping over better services that do not. When anything is offered free of charge, Ariely believes your loss aversion system remains inactive. Without it, you don’t weigh the pros and cons with as much attention to detail as you would if you had to factor in potential losses.

Is revenge sweet?




The paradox of revenge has inspired many thoughtful quotations. Here are some favorites:

  • “Resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other person dies.” ~ St. Augustine
  • “There is no revenge so complete as forgiveness.” ~ Josh Billings (1818 – 1885)
  • “In taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior.” ~ Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)
  • “Live well. It is the greatest revenge.” ~ The Talmud

“Steve Pinker is wrong”

Epimedium setosum_18-2.jpghttps://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining


“Co-authoring an article with Pinker in the New York Times (“War Really Is Going Out of Style”), the scholar of international relations Joshua L Goldstein presented a similar view in Winning the War on War: the Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide (2011). Earlier, the political scientist John E Mueller (whose work Pinker and Goldstein reference) argued in Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War (1989) that the institution of war was disappearing, with the civil wars of recent times being more like conflicts among criminal gangs. Pronounced in the summer of 1989 when liberal democracy seemed to be triumphant, Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of “the end of history” – the disappearance of large-scale violent conflict between rival political systems – was a version of the same message.

Another proponent of the Long Peace is the well-known utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, who has praised The Better Angels of Our Nature as “a supremely important book … a masterly achievement. Pinker convincingly demonstrates that there has been a dramatic decline in violence, and he is persuasive about the causes of that decline.” In a forthcoming book, The Most Good You Can Do, Singer describes altruism as “an emerging movement” with the potential to fundamentally alter the way humans live.

Among the causes of the outbreak of altruism, Pinker and Singer attach particular importance to the ascendancy of Enlightenment thinking. Reviewing Pinker, Singer writes: “During the Enlightenment, in 17th- and 18th-century Europe and countries under European influence, an important change occurred. People began to look askance at forms of violence that had previously been taken for granted: slavery, torture, despotism, duelling and extreme forms of punishment … Pinker refers to this as ‘the humanitarian revolution’.” Here too Pinker and Singer belong in a contemporary orthodoxy. With other beliefs crumbling, many seek to return to what they piously describe as “Enlightenment values”. But these values were not as unambiguously benign as is nowadays commonly supposed. John Locke denied America’s indigenous peoples any legal claim to the country’s “wild woods and uncultivated wastes”; Voltaire promoted the “pre-Adamite” theory of human development according to which Jews were remnants of an earlier and inferior humanoid species; Kant maintained that Africans were innately inclined to the practice of slavery; the utilitarian Jeremy Benthamdeveloped the project of an ideal penitentiary, the Panopticon, where inmates would be kept in solitary confinement under constant surveillance. None of these views is discussed by Singer or Pinker. More generally, there is no mention of the powerful illiberal current in Enlightenment thinking, expressed in the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks, which advocated and practised methodical violence as a means of improving society.

Talking to Steve Pinker




“Does any kind of spirituality, however non-religiously defined, play a role in his life?

“I’m afraid of using the word ‘spiritual’,” he says. “I mean, I have a sense of awe and wonder – a sense of intellectual vertigo in pondering certain questions. I hesitate to use the word ‘spiritual’ just because it comes with so much baggage about the supernatural.”

Pinker’s next book, The Sense of Style, will be a style manual for writers incorporating insights from cognitive psychology and linguistics. For example, it will offer advice on how to get around “the curse of knowledge” – the difficulty writers face in being unable to place themselves in the mind of a reader who doesn’t already know as much as the writer knows. Or the question of how to relate to one’s imagined reader: insights from psychology, Pinker will argue, show that the appropriate metaphor to keep in mind is one of vision – that “the stance you take as a writer ought to be to pretend that you’re pointing out something in the world that your reader could see with his own eyes if only he were given an unobstructed view”.!