| The first excerpt represents the past or something you must release, and is drawn from The Call of the Canyon by Zane Grey: off the land, at little or no expense to the owner. The only loss was from
beasts and birds of prey. Glenn showed Carley how a profitable business
could soon be established. He meant to fence off side canyons and to
segregate droves of his hogs, and to raise abundance of corn for winter
feed. At that time there was a splendid market for hogs, a condition Hutter
claimed would continue indefinitely in a growing country. In conclusion
Glenn eloquently told how in his necessity he had accepted gratefully the
humblest of labors, to find in the hard pursuit of it a rejuvenation of
body and mind, and a promise of independence and prosperity.
When he had finished, and excused himself to go repair a weak place in the
corral fence, Carley sat silent, wrapped in strange meditation.
The Call of the Canyon |
The second excerpt represents the present or the deciding factor of the moment, and is drawn from Howard Pyle's Book of Pirates by Howard Pyle: plural "you" struck Mainwaring as singularly strange.
As he was speaking Eleazer was fumbling in a pocket of his
long-tailed drab coat, and presently he brought something forth
that gleamed in the lanthorn light.
The next moment Mainwaring saw leveled directly in his face the
round and hollow nozzle of a pistol.
There was an instant of dead silence and then, "I am the man you
seek!" said Eleazer Cooper, in a tense and breathless voice.
The whole thing had happened so instantaneously and unexpectedly
that for the moment Mainwaring sat like one petrified. Had a
thunderbolt fallen from the silent sky and burst at his feet he
Howard Pyle's Book of Pirates |
The third excerpt represents the future or something you must embrace, and is drawn from Parmenides by Plato: others, in relation to themselves and to one another, are and are not, and
appear to be and appear not to be, in all manner of ways.
I. On the first hypothesis we may remark: first, That one is one is an
identical proposition, from which we might expect that no further
consequences could be deduced. The train of consequences which follows, is
inferred by altering the predicate into 'not many.' Yet, perhaps, if a
strict Eristic had been present, oios aner ei kai nun paren, he might have
affirmed that the not many presented a different aspect of the conception
from the one, and was therefore not identical with it. Such a subtlety
would be very much in character with the Zenonian dialectic. Secondly, We
may note, that the conclusion is really involved in the premises. For one
|
