Word Assimilation (Paul Chung)

What is the difference between empirical and authentic speech? Empirical speech repeats the idea of that which is, but authentic speech doesn't have to prove anything (it just is). Empirical language cannot be established without first having creation of speech. Landscape is full of words. All indicate a sacred performance of the interplay of words.

The poem's imagery of the vast desert peaks, is massive. The massiveness is then reflected upon the pigmentation of the rocks. The rocks are portrayed in different colors. The line of layers in the sediment speaks of the layers of our own essence. The essence of which we hide ourselves away for fear of being truly judged by others, especially those closest to us. Is it possible that truth is in the layers (onions have layers, ogres have layers)? I have no idea. I am not you, nor are you me.

I'll put it this way, words can be a confusing, muddled, mess when you lose sight of its true purpose. Not just to relay a message, but to relay intentions. But be forewarned, intentions like one's heart are easily swayed. But does that not attest to how strong a person's will is? Intentions itself are not necessarily fully understood even in the act of one's intentions.

 Speech moves people.  Speak loudly, and you gain a crowd. Speak softly, and you gain followers.