I still question whether or not a lonely, unvisited web page has any claim to existence. If something is not seen or heard or experienced, what proof can I offer? Links and search engine results, certainly, but I was speaking in a less literal sense. Which brings up a further point: why is the literal so seldom literary, as well? That one I can answer. It's boring.

Boredom is anathema; it's stagnation; it's stasis. Existence is a constant state of flux; it's ever changing; it's that little dollop of chaos which makes life worth living. If you embrace change as a given, you don't have to spend the time and effort trying to run away from something which you won't escape anyway.

If you're bored, you're ignoring something. People who are bored are boring. My cat only loves me as long as I keep feeding it; I'm rather inclined to view my mind in the same fashion. I can be accused of many things (and might even own up to some of them) but intellectual anorexia isn't one of them. I suppose in this light, boredom could be considered a thinking disorder.

By now you're probably asking yourself: is this leading anywhere? If I said, "In circles," would you consider that an adequate answer? Or, perhaps, "In spirals," proceeding from an uncertain point of origin to an undefined destination? I'd be inclined to answer: "Both, neither, or either - as you will."

There's nothing easier than telling people what they want to hear; they're predisposed towards believing you. I'm inherantly suspicious of anyone who expresses opinions too much like my own. To me, the real challenge lies in telling people the things they might not agree with, but to do it in such a fashion that they stay around long enough to listen to it. And, perhaps, even keep their minds open enough to consider it.

I do stand by the opinions I express on this site, at least until my feet get tired or I change my mind, whichever happens to come first.