Transcendentalism, n. 1. the philosophy that proposes to discover the nature of reality by investigating the process of thought rather than the objects of sense experience. . . Webster’s Unabridged
Emerson, The Mind on Fire, Robert D. Richardson, Jr. 1995
Scales and chords. For Ralph Waldo Emerson, it was words and sentences. He was a prose artist, and his practice was journal writing. He sought the artistic experience of using a crafted skill to achieve meaning in expression.
Emerson was, like Immanual Kant, disturbed by skepticism, the philosophy of David Hume that says that we can’t really know what we know, that causality itself can’t be proven, that all thinking derives from sense perception, that no inductions can have the force of certainty, that the self is illusory. Emerson believed in the validity of intuition, the truth of what can be sensed from self-awareness in parallel with awareness of the world. One’s mind is made by nature, one’s mind is valid. Live, look, and see. From one’s full experience, one can know all that there is. “The whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind.” “My own mind is the direct revelation I have from God .”
Unwittingly, he affirmed the American political vision, in the mystical realm. “The highest revelation is that God is in every man.”
He was well aware of the pitfalls, the draw of sophistry, of experts, of the easy, shallow path. “It is easy to live for others, everybody does. I call on you to live for yourselves . . .” Follow your mind, but watch your step. “When you write do not omit the thing you meant to say“.
Writing was self-actualization, his steadied stepping along a true path. He was after first impressions, not second thoughts. “For the best part . . of every mind is not that which a person knows, but that which hovers in gleams, suggestions, tantalizing unpossessed before him”. He recorded dreams. He cultivated flow. “The way to write is to throw your body at the mark when your arrows are spent“. Don’t fret for that hobgoblin: consistency.
“I will no longer confer, differ, refer, defer, prefer, or suffer”
In his relentless exploration of words and sentences, as he journeyed and journaled his own mind, Emerson learned to know what words can’t say, and what mystics always discover: that there is thinking, and there is knowing, and they are not the same. In carefully perceiving what is, and listening to what one thinks – in this mysterious interplay of sensing and thinking -Emerson came to sense the nameless, universal essence of the world. And so can we all. Self Reliance.
Emerson grasped that natureself-registers. The active mind vivifies the attributes and forms and living magic of beauty, love, time, and eternity. All individuals, then, can be gods, in this way, creators of the world. And for Emerson, that is the way to live.
“a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” Edmund Burke
The past teaches for the future, and society, like life itself, must learn from its experience and carry this knowledge forward. Society must both honor its past and adapt for its future. In times of dramatic change, social movements arise, and, like the French Revolution, can advocate radical rejection of the past. The French revolutionaries sought wholesale reconfiguration of all elements of society.
[they] “completely pulled down to the ground, their monarchy; their church; their nobility; their law; their revenue; their army, their navy; their commerce; their arts; and their manufactures” Edmund Burke
The ensuing chaos and tragedy provoked a philosophy of counter-revolution, most notably from Joseph de Maistre and Edmund Burke, a philosophy that we call conservatism, today.
Joseph de Maistre opposed what he called ‘rational’ government, government directed by seemingly reasoning elites, those who say they know best for the rest of us, using the cover of majority rule. Government of ‘reason’, he argued, would lean towards abstract and impossible-to-achieve utopia, and lead to human evil, in its quest for efficiency and to please the whims of the majority. He advocated for a heirarchical authority, in the form of a religious constitutional monarchy. Only allegiance to values held outside the minds of men – including the king – values held in protection by the rights of property, indeed values held with irrational commitment to time-honored tradition, he believed, could rule over time without corruption against the everyday interests of the majority. de Maistre was a privileged aristocrat. He has been vehemently derided, and even credited with creating fascism, but he was not surprised by the Reign of Terror.
Edmund Burke, an Irishman in England, was initially supportive of the French Revolution, but also came to denounce its abstract, metaphysical extremism, its extreme rejection of the past. Democracy can be excessive. He found that a common heritage was best supported with property rights, and by due process of common law, and that change for the future was best cultivated with education, commerce, and free trade. He argued against taxing the American colony, and warned of the inherent dictatorial expansionism of the French revolutionaries. He was not surprised by the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte.
de Maistre and Burke have support in history. Authoritarian regimes that maintain tradition – Japan, Germany, Spain, Chile, South Korea – have been able to progress to democratic systems. Totalitarian regimes which severely reject their past – Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba – have not.
“A conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop‘” William F. Buckley, Jr.
Conservatism is evolution, not revolution.
https://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpg00Think Againhttps://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpgThink Again2010-12-18 21:58:222010-12-18 21:58:22Evolution not Revolution
Vietnam Now, Jonathan Mirsky, a review of Vietnam: Rising Dragon, by Bill Hayton, New York Review of Books, June 24, 2010
Vietnam, now, is ruled iron-clad by a one party Politburo. It is a police state. One in six vietnamese works for state security. Politburo members achieve their position, godfather style, by building guanxi – “a network of supporters and delivering them benefits in return”, essentially protection rackets. The internet is censored, there is a “pervasive sense of fear”. Dissent is severely repressed, dissidents are jailed. Prostitution is everywhere. “On a day to day basis every official transaction is likely to require some form of payment. Corruption is built into every public activity.”
State run businesses, however, are allowing market methods, farmers have been given “control over their fields”, the economy is growing and attracting outside investment. There is extensive environmental degradation, environmental “laws” are widely ignored. Vietnamese logging has taken as much forest as once did America’s agent orange. Hanoi just celebrated its 1000 year anniversary. It is choked in traffic.
It remains a point of pride for the American protest movement that they ‘stopped’ the War in Vietnam. There is no South Vietnam the way there is a South Korea.
Like Vietnam, so like China. The Chinese Communist Party is “like one group in Washington naming the members of the Supreme Court, all the members of the Cabinet, the editors of The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the heads of all major think tanks, and the CEOs of major companies like General Electric, Exxon-Mobil, and Wal-Mart“. The Party: Impenetrable, All Powerful, Ian Johnson, New York Review of Books, September 30, 2010
In China, privatization has turned state-owned companies into shareholder-owned companies, but the majority shareholder is the state. All companies, large and small, have a party “secretary” managing them along side their CEO. Party meetings precede board meetings, which then give routine approval to Party decisions. In government, Party “leading groups” instruct and direct government ministers. Contrary to predictions, economic liberalization has increased Party control, not lessened it. Personal liberties have increased but not political liberties.
The Party “has largely withdrawn from the personal lives of Chinese citizens, allowing them to pursue their own ambitions and goals as long as they avoid the high crime of directly challenging the Party.”
The Party has 78 million members, equal to the population of Germany. They are actively involved in all levels of society. The second largest budget category for Chinese government spending – the first is the military and the third is health, education, and welfare – is for “stability maintenance”, monitoring people and preventing unauthorized organization. China, from Famine to Oslo, Perry Link, New York Review of Books, January 13, 2011
China has become the world’s second largest economy. It’s GDP has grown 10 times in 26 years, has overturned Japan’s GDP, and will overtake the US by 2027. It is the largest automobile market in the world, and uses twice as much steel as Europe, the US and Japan, combined. Niall Ferguson, Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2010
“We do not seek to contain China’s rise” President Barack Obama, November 16, 2009, Shanghai, China
https://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpg00Think Againhttps://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpgThink Again2010-12-15 20:43:422021-01-12 22:03:01Asia now
To endure, free societies must foster access to wealth, there must be democratization of wealth. Everyday people must prosper. Their ability to secure the means to achieve their human needs must be available.
At the American founding, wealth for everyday people came from farming. The continent presented a vast supply of essentially free, never-tilled land. Political rights and national sovereignty were priorities. Industrialization was not foreseen.
As available land was taken up, farming was less and less a means for acquiring wealth. The civil war led to industrialization, and mechanization decimated farm labor. In TheGrapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, portrays dispossessed farm laborers, watching, as they leave town for California, one tractor, in one morning, do the work that used to take all of them together weeks to do. The Great Depression followed. The industrial era had not advanced enough to take up for the loss of farm labor employment.
The New Deal subsidized employment, directly hired millions, created public work projects, and strengthened worker’s rights. This was successful, for a time, because economic output was labor intensive. Enterprises used hands and backs much more than machines. Building roads utilized thousands of workers. Today, however, economic output has become capital intensive. With stunning engineering advancements, capital – knowledge, resources, technology, machines – has become the vital input. Increasing production does not require commensurate increase in labor and wealth flows increasingly to capital. Employment is failing to provide for democratization of wealth.
Ironically, attempts to increase the value and opportunity for labor – such as with direct government employment, government subsidy, mandated higher wages and benefits – only serve to accelerate the process of shrinking labor value, because they increase the incentive to produce with less labor. The entitlement society, by progressively redistributing income from the employed to the non-employed, accelerates this further as the employed sector is pressed to ever greater efficiency – to use less labor – to pay for the ever growing non-employed sector. In a feedback spiral, the non-employed sector fights for political influence and increases its taxation demands, further pressuring the employed, tax paying sector to produce greater labor saving efficiency.
And so, a new economics is needed. This new economics will somehow have to democratize wealth by democratizing capital. In some new way, individual citizens will need to automatically accumulate capital as they normally perform their life cycle. This capital must be their property, their new kind of seed corn, and it must be unavailable to politicians to use for cultivating their own political popularity. But the state must ensure that it is measuredly utilized rather than consumed. It must accumulate, somehow sequestered to grow, and yet also be available for key life needs.
Capital will be the earner of the future, everyone will have to have capital. It may require a crisis to democratize capital and not labor, and that crisis may be neigh.
https://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpg00Think Againhttps://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpgThink Again2010-12-11 23:00:182010-12-11 23:00:18A New Economics
People differ in their need for stimulation. There is the nerdy kid who can’t tolerate a rolling coaster ride or a scary movie, and there is the test-the-limits thrill seeker like John Lennon.
John Lennon relentlessly sought sensation, and defiant self expression. He got himself into trouble, all the time, and pulled others into trouble with him. Paul McCartney’s father called him “that Lennon”. He was precocious – with drinking, with drugs, with sex. He was also intelligent, and artistic. He liked imaginative writing, had a talent for music, and a sense for authentic, emotional expression. He took the time to learn the craft of playing guitar, writing songs, and singing, and he became very good. Rock and roll was it, he went crazy for Elvis Presley. Listen to Elvis in ‘Trying to get to you’, you will hear the Lennon inspiration.
“I was a rhythm guitarist. . . I can make a band drive” . . He rejected any aesthetic of thinking – “that excellentness which I never believed in“. He disliked Paul’s literary songs. “I go for feeling“.
He could also be mean. He truly was “a jealous guy“, ever fearful of being up-staged. He was quick with the verbal put down, and created bully loyalty. He could be violent with alcohol. But he was also an engine for success. He was bold and could drive a crowd. He could be endearing and needy and funny. Women were drawn to want to care for him.
He suffered boredom like some ghastly memory, and seemed haunted by loss. As he achieved phenomenal success, he found himself maddingly unsatisfied. There is a pained disappointment in his best songs. He was just not able to find peace of mind. He descended into out-of-control pill taking, drinking, marijuana, LSD, and heroin. When Yoko first met him, she found he would wake up and take “handfuls of pills”.
His recklessness cost Lennon/McCarthy ownership of many of their songs. He betrayed friends and mentors – Brian Epstein, George Martin, and sadly, Paul. His interviews have blame, special pleading, and self pity. He would both decry fame and stoke it. Being lionized while feeling empty made him cynical.
Who was John Lennon? Creative, engaging, and appealing, but also disturbed, difficult and ultimately tragic. He could not achieve inner reward. For someone fantastically famous and wealthy, one of the luckiest people on the planet, he was unfulfilled.
He’s a real Nowhere Man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Doesn’t have a point of view
Knows not where he’s going to
Isn’t he a bit like you and me?
https://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpg00Think Againhttps://thinkagainonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ThinkAgain-nsq.jpgThink Again2010-12-08 18:17:572010-12-08 18:17:57Nowhere Man
Founding Mystic
/in All, Books, IdeasTranscendentalism, n. 1. the philosophy that proposes to discover the nature of reality by investigating the process of thought rather than the objects of sense experience. . . Webster’s Unabridged
Emerson, The Mind on Fire, Robert D. Richardson, Jr. 1995
Scales and chords. For Ralph Waldo Emerson, it was words and sentences. He was a prose artist, and his practice was journal writing. He sought the artistic experience of using a crafted skill to achieve meaning in expression.
Emerson was, like Immanual Kant, disturbed by skepticism, the philosophy of David Hume that says that we can’t really know what we know, that causality itself can’t be proven, that all thinking derives from sense perception, that no inductions can have the force of certainty, that the self is illusory. Emerson believed in the validity of intuition, the truth of what can be sensed from self-awareness in parallel with awareness of the world. One’s mind is made by nature, one’s mind is valid. Live, look, and see. From one’s full experience, one can know all that there is. “The whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind.” “My own mind is the direct revelation I have from God .”
Unwittingly, he affirmed the American political vision, in the mystical realm. “The highest revelation is that God is in every man.”
He was well aware of the pitfalls, the draw of sophistry, of experts, of the easy, shallow path. “It is easy to live for others, everybody does. I call on you to live for yourselves . . .” Follow your mind, but watch your step. “When you write do not omit the thing you meant to say“.
Writing was self-actualization, his steadied stepping along a true path. He was after first impressions, not second thoughts. “For the best part . . of every mind is not that which a person knows, but that which hovers in gleams, suggestions, tantalizing unpossessed before him”. He recorded dreams. He cultivated flow. “The way to write is to throw your body at the mark when your arrows are spent“. Don’t fret for that hobgoblin: consistency.
“I will no longer confer, differ, refer, defer, prefer, or suffer”
In his relentless exploration of words and sentences, as he journeyed and journaled his own mind, Emerson learned to know what words can’t say, and what mystics always discover: that there is thinking, and there is knowing, and they are not the same. In carefully perceiving what is, and listening to what one thinks – in this mysterious interplay of sensing and thinking -Emerson came to sense the nameless, universal essence of the world. And so can we all. Self Reliance.
Emerson grasped that nature self-registers. The active mind vivifies the attributes and forms and living magic of beauty, love, time, and eternity. All individuals, then, can be gods, in this way, creators of the world. And for Emerson, that is the way to live.
Evolution not Revolution
/in All, Politics“a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” Edmund Burke
The past teaches for the future, and society, like life itself, must learn from its experience and carry this knowledge forward. Society must both honor its past and adapt for its future. In times of dramatic change, social movements arise, and, like the French Revolution, can advocate radical rejection of the past. The French revolutionaries sought wholesale reconfiguration of all elements of society.
[they] “completely pulled down to the ground, their monarchy; their church; their nobility; their law; their revenue; their army, their navy; their commerce; their arts; and their manufactures” Edmund Burke
The ensuing chaos and tragedy provoked a philosophy of counter-revolution, most notably from Joseph de Maistre and Edmund Burke, a philosophy that we call conservatism, today.
Joseph de Maistre opposed what he called ‘rational’ government, government directed by seemingly reasoning elites, those who say they know best for the rest of us, using the cover of majority rule. Government of ‘reason’, he argued, would lean towards abstract and impossible-to-achieve utopia, and lead to human evil, in its quest for efficiency and to please the whims of the majority. He advocated for a heirarchical authority, in the form of a religious constitutional monarchy. Only allegiance to values held outside the minds of men – including the king – values held in protection by the rights of property, indeed values held with irrational commitment to time-honored tradition, he believed, could rule over time without corruption against the everyday interests of the majority. de Maistre was a privileged aristocrat. He has been vehemently derided, and even credited with creating fascism, but he was not surprised by the Reign of Terror.
Edmund Burke, an Irishman in England, was initially supportive of the French Revolution, but also came to denounce its abstract, metaphysical extremism, its extreme rejection of the past. Democracy can be excessive. He found that a common heritage was best supported with property rights, and by due process of common law, and that change for the future was best cultivated with education, commerce, and free trade. He argued against taxing the American colony, and warned of the inherent dictatorial expansionism of the French revolutionaries. He was not surprised by the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte.
de Maistre and Burke have support in history. Authoritarian regimes that maintain tradition – Japan, Germany, Spain, Chile, South Korea – have been able to progress to democratic systems. Totalitarian regimes which severely reject their past – Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba – have not.
“A conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop‘” William F. Buckley, Jr.
Conservatism is evolution, not revolution.
Asia now
/in PoliticsVietnam Now, Jonathan Mirsky, a review of Vietnam: Rising Dragon, by Bill Hayton, New York Review of Books, June 24, 2010
Vietnam, now, is ruled iron-clad by a one party Politburo. It is a police state. One in six vietnamese works for state security. Politburo members achieve their position, godfather style, by building guanxi – “a network of supporters and delivering them benefits in return”, essentially protection rackets. The internet is censored, there is a “pervasive sense of fear”. Dissent is severely repressed, dissidents are jailed. Prostitution is everywhere. “On a day to day basis every official transaction is likely to require some form of payment. Corruption is built into every public activity.”
State run businesses, however, are allowing market methods, farmers have been given “control over their fields”, the economy is growing and attracting outside investment. There is extensive environmental degradation, environmental “laws” are widely ignored. Vietnamese logging has taken as much forest as once did America’s agent orange. Hanoi just celebrated its 1000 year anniversary. It is choked in traffic.
It remains a point of pride for the American protest movement that they ‘stopped’ the War in Vietnam. There is no South Vietnam the way there is a South Korea.
Like Vietnam, so like China. The Chinese Communist Party is “like one group in Washington naming the members of the Supreme Court, all the members of the Cabinet, the editors of The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the heads of all major think tanks, and the CEOs of major companies like General Electric, Exxon-Mobil, and Wal-Mart“. The Party: Impenetrable, All Powerful, Ian Johnson, New York Review of Books, September 30, 2010
In China, privatization has turned state-owned companies into shareholder-owned companies, but the majority shareholder is the state. All companies, large and small, have a party “secretary” managing them along side their CEO. Party meetings precede board meetings, which then give routine approval to Party decisions. In government, Party “leading groups” instruct and direct government ministers. Contrary to predictions, economic liberalization has increased Party control, not lessened it. Personal liberties have increased but not political liberties.
The Party “has largely withdrawn from the personal lives of Chinese citizens, allowing them to pursue their own ambitions and goals as long as they avoid the high crime of directly challenging the Party.”
The Party has 78 million members, equal to the population of Germany. They are actively involved in all levels of society. The second largest budget category for Chinese government spending – the first is the military and the third is health, education, and welfare – is for “stability maintenance”, monitoring people and preventing unauthorized organization. China, from Famine to Oslo, Perry Link, New York Review of Books, January 13, 2011
China has become the world’s second largest economy. It’s GDP has grown 10 times in 26 years, has overturned Japan’s GDP, and will overtake the US by 2027. It is the largest automobile market in the world, and uses twice as much steel as Europe, the US and Japan, combined. Niall Ferguson, Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2010
“We do not seek to contain China’s rise” President Barack Obama, November 16, 2009, Shanghai, China
A New Economics
/in All, Ideas, PoliticsTo endure, free societies must foster access to wealth, there must be democratization of wealth. Everyday people must prosper. Their ability to secure the means to achieve their human needs must be available.
At the American founding, wealth for everyday people came from farming. The continent presented a vast supply of essentially free, never-tilled land. Political rights and national sovereignty were priorities. Industrialization was not foreseen.
As available land was taken up, farming was less and less a means for acquiring wealth. The civil war led to industrialization, and mechanization decimated farm labor. In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, portrays dispossessed farm laborers, watching, as they leave town for California, one tractor, in one morning, do the work that used to take all of them together weeks to do. The Great Depression followed. The industrial era had not advanced enough to take up for the loss of farm labor employment.
The New Deal subsidized employment, directly hired millions, created public work projects, and strengthened worker’s rights. This was successful, for a time, because economic output was labor intensive. Enterprises used hands and backs much more than machines. Building roads utilized thousands of workers. Today, however, economic output has become capital intensive. With stunning engineering advancements, capital – knowledge, resources, technology, machines – has become the vital input. Increasing production does not require commensurate increase in labor and wealth flows increasingly to capital. Employment is failing to provide for democratization of wealth.
Ironically, attempts to increase the value and opportunity for labor – such as with direct government employment, government subsidy, mandated higher wages and benefits – only serve to accelerate the process of shrinking labor value, because they increase the incentive to produce with less labor. The entitlement society, by progressively redistributing income from the employed to the non-employed, accelerates this further as the employed sector is pressed to ever greater efficiency – to use less labor – to pay for the ever growing non-employed sector. In a feedback spiral, the non-employed sector fights for political influence and increases its taxation demands, further pressuring the employed, tax paying sector to produce greater labor saving efficiency.
And so, a new economics is needed. This new economics will somehow have to democratize wealth by democratizing capital. In some new way, individual citizens will need to automatically accumulate capital as they normally perform their life cycle. This capital must be their property, their new kind of seed corn, and it must be unavailable to politicians to use for cultivating their own political popularity. But the state must ensure that it is measuredly utilized rather than consumed. It must accumulate, somehow sequestered to grow, and yet also be available for key life needs.
Capital will be the earner of the future, everyone will have to have capital. It may require a crisis to democratize capital and not labor, and that crisis may be neigh.
Nowhere Man
/in All, art, BooksJohn Lennon, The Life Philip Norman, 2008
I read the news today, oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph
He blew his mind out in a car
He didn’t notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
They’d seen his face before
People differ in their need for stimulation. There is the nerdy kid who can’t tolerate a rolling coaster ride or a scary movie, and there is the test-the-limits thrill seeker like John Lennon.
John Lennon relentlessly sought sensation, and defiant self expression. He got himself into trouble, all the time, and pulled others into trouble with him. Paul McCartney’s father called him “that Lennon”. He was precocious – with drinking, with drugs, with sex. He was also intelligent, and artistic. He liked imaginative writing, had a talent for music, and a sense for authentic, emotional expression. He took the time to learn the craft of playing guitar, writing songs, and singing, and he became very good. Rock and roll was it, he went crazy for Elvis Presley. Listen to Elvis in ‘Trying to get to you’, you will hear the Lennon inspiration.
“I was a rhythm guitarist. . . I can make a band drive” . . He rejected any aesthetic of thinking – “that excellentness which I never believed in“. He disliked Paul’s literary songs. “I go for feeling“.
He could also be mean. He truly was “a jealous guy“, ever fearful of being up-staged. He was quick with the verbal put down, and created bully loyalty. He could be violent with alcohol. But he was also an engine for success. He was bold and could drive a crowd. He could be endearing and needy and funny. Women were drawn to want to care for him.
He suffered boredom like some ghastly memory, and seemed haunted by loss. As he achieved phenomenal success, he found himself maddingly unsatisfied. There is a pained disappointment in his best songs. He was just not able to find peace of mind. He descended into out-of-control pill taking, drinking, marijuana, LSD, and heroin. When Yoko first met him, she found he would wake up and take “handfuls of pills”.
His recklessness cost Lennon/McCarthy ownership of many of their songs. He betrayed friends and mentors – Brian Epstein, George Martin, and sadly, Paul. His interviews have blame, special pleading, and self pity. He would both decry fame and stoke it. Being lionized while feeling empty made him cynical.
Who was John Lennon? Creative, engaging, and appealing, but also disturbed, difficult and ultimately tragic. He could not achieve inner reward. For someone fantastically famous and wealthy, one of the luckiest people on the planet, he was unfulfilled.
He’s a real Nowhere Man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Doesn’t have a point of view
Knows not where he’s going to
Isn’t he a bit like you and me?