In a flash of torrential trauma
Words intrude--
Hard, jagged edges
Ripping into her reverie,
Puncturing her peace,
Shattering her soul.
Stunned,
she stumbles,
then stands
sloshing, slogging,
through painful puddles
of gray grief
until sunshine emerges—
Evaporating
the wailing wind
into a weak whisper . . .
"Seek safety . . . in the shadows!"
it sighs,
. . . solace within the shards!"
They sparkle
in the scintillating sunlight
she collects—herself—
Colors connect,
catalyzing
catharsis.
—and energy expands
Filling the void
with multiplicity,
Mixing media
Restores reason
and roundness
to a Still Life.
Cherice Montgomery, October 8, 2005
4 comments:
Silence can sometimes mean just the opposite of Indifference or Neglect, and Safety does not mean that there is no Suffering. In fact, the Safety of others often comes only at the price of tremendous personal Sacrifice, as this post will attest:
http://chericespieces.blogspot.com/2005/04/sacrifice.html#links
All cogent comments. No, I was not aware that Paul Simon generated all of his own material. Thanks for the info.!
I suppose we can never be sure that we will not miss someone important (either because they cannot see us or because we cannot see them). On the other hand, consider this from a more technological perspective for a moment:
When you think "wall," think of an internet security program of some kind. The average person doesn't even try to hack internet security programs (in fact, many aren't even aware that they exist, and many who are wouldn't have the slightest clue as to where to begin to get past them—even on their own computers on which they have administrative privileges). Then you have the group that knows enough to be dangerous. They attempt the hacks, but they are usually pretty crude in their attempts. Sometimes they succeed, but usually only by serendipity and often leave a significant amount of damage to the system in their wake. (By serendipity, I mean someone leaves a password sitting around or "protects" the system with a password that is easy to guess, or the security system is not a very strong one--only providing one layer of security that is pretty easily identified/obvious and left unprotected in terms of back doors, etc.)
By contrast, to hack a decent internet security program requires a certain level of understanding, skill, and expertise (not to mention tenacity). "Expert" hackers can not only get in and out of the system, but they can do it at their pleasure, without being detected most of the time, and are usually pretty careful to leave everything as they found it—intact and without damaging anything.
So, when you say that "we cannot regulate who or what are excluded," I find that I must disagree. I think that depends on what kind of a wall you build and what kind of hackers happen to exist in your world who might be interested in scaling the walls you have built. A "good" wall dissuades the average person from even thinking about climbing it, prevents amateurs from scaling it, and admits only those who are least likely to do any sort of damage.
Your comment about "seeing out" implies that all walls are only designed in a particular way and from a particular set of materials. There is nothing in the Wall-building Rule Book that says the wall cannot be transparent in one direction (analogous to a two-way mirror), or that it cannot have little portals in it (like some of the medieval castles that had tiny holes in the walls through which arrow-weilding warriors could aim and shoot), or that it cannot have turrets out of which people can survey the realm . . . .
Besides, most walls have gates in them . . . although sometimes you have to go looking for them (like the main character in Frances Hodgson Burnett's book, The Secret Garden). You never know what you mind find hiding under the ivy, or when the drawbridge will suddenly and unexpectedly be lowered!
As to "well-crafted," I must say that I was pretty pleased with the results! (Grin) You ask, "Aren't all hackers unwelcome?" Well, Paul Graham offers some VERY interesting thoughts on that subject (written from the perspective of a hacker) in his essay "Hackers and Painters." Take a look: http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html
It is really quite beautiful and when I have time, I'll devote a separate posting to it.
Meanwhile, your comments regarding successful security systems are persuasive. My computer has an irritating habit of letting some garbage pass that it should block, while, at times, blocking legitimate communications. I suppose most of it is a question of balance--making sure that the filters are set to block what may be potentially damaging to the user, while still preserving the functionality of the system so that it continues to be of benefit to the user. Getting the settings right requires that the system "learn" what the user's patterns of use are and adjust accordingly. It also requires that the user have significant knowledge about how the system works so as to provide the feedback necessary for the system to make needed adjustments.
Yes, sometimes the computer freezes, and sometimes even superusers make errors. No, you don't always have to shut the whole computer down, but sometimes it needs to reset itself, while at others, the user needs a break from the frustration. Gotta love technology, don't ya?!
As to drawbridges, I have quite a bit to say about that, but will address it in a separate posting on another day as well.
This article, read metaphorically, offers some interesting perspectives on safe shutdowns and resets.
Norman, D. (1996). Design as practiced. (With an introduction by Terry Winograd). In T. Winograd (Ed.). Bringing design to software. New York: ACM Press.
Post a Comment