Meeting Old Friends Poem by Desmond Kon

Da-Ren has met Dada for tea and now has to join the other table.
“Toss them down the stairs, ” Dada tells Da-Ren, “and see
where the sticks land.” Playing pick-up sticks online
is nervous energy especially with that plasma screen replaying
last season’s bad soccer. Someone forgot the hops
in this batch of microbrews that now pass off for babycham.
Dada has stopped star jumping and begun spinning saucers
on sticks. “He always liked the circus, the circuitous, in notions.”
The producer whispers to his cameraman in amusement.
The grips are transferring the flats into Studio A4
to paint the Venice scene with Danish mermaids in relief
and overcrowded gondolas. There’s no recourse
for the Wonder Woman props there; they’re being airlifted
out of here Wednesday now that the entire estate’s been bought
out by a Macau tycoon. “Let’s try this with toothpicks, ”
Da-Ren says at the adjacent table, nailing a housefly
down by the wing, its body flurrying like duckpins.
Its compound eyes register viewfinders.



Author's Note:

This poem's earlier version situated itself within a chapbook sequence chosen by Mary Jo Bang as one of six finalists in the Noemi Press Poetry Chapbook Award. The image of Danish mermaids has been interpreted in plush as 'Pinoki Fren', a soft sculpture created by graphic designer Gladys Phan of Kikeinosocks.

Wing-Tsit Chan, in A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press,1963) , finds in the small school of Logicians, also called Ming-chia (School of Names) , a few minor thinkers who devoted themselves to logical considerations with regard to names and actuality even if they did not always agree on all their ideas. The Logicians were singular in Chinese history but their intellectual efforts remained embryonic and undeveloped. While all major ancient Chinese philosophical schools did concern themselves with the idea of names, Chan notes that such discourse stemmed from “its social and moral significance (as in Confucianism) , for its metaphysical import (as in Taoism) , or for political control (as in Legalism) ”. Neither formulating any syllogism or law of thought, Chan remarks that the Logicians “expressed themselves in dialogues, aphorisms, and paradoxes instead of systematic and cogent argumentation”. Perceived as idle debaters with little utility for social problems, these Logicians were summed up by Chuang Tzu, who remarked: “They are able to subdue other people’s mouths, but cannot win their hearts.” Below is an extract, On Names and Actuality, taken from the Ssu-pu ts’ung-k’an (Four Libraries Series) edition:

“Heaven, earth, and their products are all things. When things possess the characteristics of things without exceeding them, there is actuality. When actuality fulfils its function as actuality, without wanting, there is order. To be out of order is to fall into disorder. To remain in order is to be correct. What is correct is used to rectify what is incorrect. [What is incorrect is not used to] doubt what is correct. To rectify is to rectify actuality, and to rectify actuality is to rectify the name corresponding to it. If the name is rectified, then 'this' and 'that' are restricted. If the designation 'that' is not restricted to that, then the 'that' will not do. If the designation 'this' is not restricted to this, then the 'this' will not do. This is because the non-equivalent is regarded as the equivalent. What is not equivalent will lead to disorder. If that 'that' is equivalent to that and is therefore restricted to that, then the designation will do for that. When this 'this' is equivalent to and is therefore restricted to this, then the designation will do for this. This is because the equivalent is correct. Therefore it is correct that 'that' is limited to that and 'this' is limited to this. But it is incorrect to apply 'that' to this and even to regard 'that' as this, or to apply 'this' to that and even to regard 'this' as that. A name is to designate an actuality. If we know that this is not this and know that this is not here, we shall not call it ['this']. If we know that that is not that and know that that is not there, we shall not call it ['that']. Perfect were the wise kings of old. They examined names and actualities and were careful in their designations. Perfect were the wise kings of old.”