Winding Up

Dust 

settles far 

away from the road

and no one

thinks and no one 

sleeps, but the 

ghosts, they do wander

around, stirring up dust 

relentlessly. 

Purple

clings to them like nothing

else, but that is all.

Purple and dust is their

world and that is

all. 

The landscape was swept 

clean. And the sky was pink and 

purple.  I hugged my 

jacket to my 

chest because it was windy (the 

wind was cold) and squinted, looking far, 

far away.  There was nothing.

Except for my 

rabbit who was always 

with me. “Come on, Jake. Let’s go, 

Jake.” Jake and I went. Or I 

went, lifting Jake’s white body and placing him in 

my pouch (which was rough, but Jake didn’t 

mind), and took him down with me. I had to 

grasp the metal as I went and I 

did mind that. Because it was also 

cold and felt not soft and not 

clean and also my hands were not 

gripping so I had to really

grab and I find that un

pleasant.  

My car (which was 

red and didn’t 

work) was still 

there.  Thankfully.  And my 

things were still 

there (of course).  Not eaten.  

I touched my

hair and knew I didn’t have to

cut it yet, so that was

good.  

Four blackbirds play through the

bruised clouds that begin to

swell with night’s purple

blood and settle, talking,

likely laughing maybe a

top the grey-green

building box so

high.

I tried to thank a 

spirit for appearing to 

me by slipping five

dollars into its 

palm:

disaster.

My darling, 

Winifred, your name contains the words

“win” and

“fred”.

I like that and I love you. 

Sometimes singing — music — wells within, bubbling 

hotly in inopportune 

moments — moments

inopportune — and you must

quell, must quell to be

considerate. 

Paper 

clips and tape and other things that

bind surround and you become so

sad. But that 

too must be quelled.

Sometimes hair breaks and you want to 

cry a question — small question — “Why?

Why does hair

break? and why do things —

Sometimes singing, music, wells and then it

doesn’t. 

So hurt; so eaten.

People talk with

worms.

Worms! They spill out, they

slip out. Over appled lips they

move.  Worms. And

always and always they

churn.

Stomachs make

worms — so they

fester, producing

worms: worse.

So hurt; so beaten.

All of us

worms! Worms! Meat of the

everyone. For the

everymind. Goodbye,

Eden.  You’ve been —

             Worms for worms for worms.

And we’re all so 

hurt, so

eaten.  

Morning air in

Suburbia can smell so

Delicious - like laundry and

Grass and the sun bringing with it

Outer space - can remind one that a 

Star touches our faces with daily

Intimacy.  

I don’t think the Deists, with their

Cast out illustrations of

Ships, were from 

Suburbia.

Or ever experienced a morning there. 

“Reverse psychology” can be defined as the attempt to persuade someone to think a thought or carry out an action by using speech seeming to ask the listener to think the opposite thought or carry out the opposite action. Some time during the short history of psychology, the concept of reverse psychology arose and during the even shorter history of reverse psychology, whether it should or should not be employed has become a topic of heated debate.  Dr. Michael Pantalon in “Psychology Today” recently published an article titled “Do You Use ‘Reverse Psychology’? Stop Right Now!” Naturally, he claims to be, through the title, employing a tactic of reverse psychology and then proceeds to argue for its use instead of against it — the debate can get confusing as well as heated.  While such discussions often yield interesting results, inspiring fruitful studies on human behavior, surprisingly no one has seemed to realize that reverse psychology does not actually exist.  By following an argument of formal logic based on two consequential premises to a conclusion, one can easily see why this is so: one, the meaning intended behind language informs language and, two, the meaning intended behind language employing reverse psychology is generally the opposite of what is being literally said, but because meaning informs language, what is being said is what is meant; therefore, reverse psychology does not exist.  

The meaning intended behind language, “the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way,” informs language.  Language can be broken up into words and words are merely symbols representing a concrete or abstract concept.  Because this is so, words are extremely flexible, more flexible than those arguing over the concept of reverse psychology without first asking whether or not it exists realize; if a meaning is intended behind a word, that meaning becomes what the word represents.  Similarly, with phrases, if a meaning is intended behind a phrase, that meaning becomes what the phrase represents.  This can be seen in the varying forms of the same language from era to era, city to city, town to town, social group to social group, and, finally, from person to person.  The word “gay,” for example, has taken on an entirely new meaning over recent decades.  Without understanding this, the line “we’ll have a gay old time” found in the theme song for The Flintstones could seriously mislead.  One might argue that just because the meaning of words evolve does not imply that meaning informs language, however to this it must be said that the evolution of words shows exactly that the meaning intended behind language informs language. Adults not privy to their children’s new lingo constantly embarrass themselves and their children because the intended meaning behind their words is different and informs the meaning of the word, creating an embarrassing situation.  Seen here is meaning informing language both from one era to another and from one social group to another.  Meaning intended behind language must and does inform language. 

In employing a technique of so-called “reverse psychology,” one uses certain words to convey a certain meaning with the hopes that the listener will do a certain thing.  Because the intended meaning is in conflict with the traditional meaning of the words being used, the words then take on a new meaning in light of the speaker’s intent.  For instance, if Person A, wanting Person B to immediately kiss them, says to Person B, “do not, under any circumstances, kiss me” and Person B then immediately kisses Person A, the words “do not, under any circumstances, kiss me” take on the meaning of “immediately kiss me.”  One may argue against this, saying that words have generally assigned meanings and that simply because someone intends to mean something different does not change the meaning of the word; but this imposes a false rigidity on language.  Language, by nature, is fluid and the same word can mean one thing to one speaker and a whole other to the next.  Grandma Dolly can say “That skater is bad!” while Skater Joe can say “Dude, that skater is bad.” Although the words are almost identical, the intended meaning is entirely different and, therefore, the words take on a different meaning.  Grandma Dolly may be commenting on how that skater leaves scuff marks on the sidewalk outside her home and on the rails in her parks, while Skater Joe is complimenting that skater’s incredible 360 Pop Shuv It.  Notice that in neither case the reverse of the other is being said; although the intended meaning of Grandma Dolly’s words and the intended meaning of Skater Joe’s are nearly opposite to each other, the meaning that each intend informs the words they use in the specific moment in which the use it.  Consequently, when one attempts to use reverse psychology by saying the opposite of what they mean, they are still saying what they mean and are therefore not using reverse psychology.

Given the premises that, one, the meaning intended behind language informs language, and, two, the meaning intended behind language employing reverse psychology is generally the opposite of what is being literally said, but because meaning informs language, what is being said is what is meant, reverse psychology contradicts itself as a concept and does not and cannot truly exist.  The minds of those involved in heated debates over whether or not reverse psychology is beneficial or harmful, should instead realize that reverse psychology does not exist, cease to argue, and then be amazed at the power of human thought over language.  George Orwell in his masterpiece, 1984, certainly recognized this fact; its time the world of psychology and academia at large catches up.  Of course, one can say, in refutation of this entire argument, that it is based on the fact that intended meaning always informs language and that a person cannot, for instance, purposefully override this process by using language contrary to their meaning — as seen in the act of lying — and in response to this it must be said “good point.”