So the gentleman referenced in the entry of the 26th claims that a sneezing cow is a lot funnier than a coughing cow. I find myself trying to visualize what a sneezing cow would look like. What do I come up with? How about a 1,100 pound short-haired holstein-colored cat caught in a sneezing fit? Even if that ain't funny, one would be hard pressed not to stop and take note of what is erupting in the corner by the calf pen.

What we appear to have here is an application of poetic license, which goes by any number of names depending upon the context, for example, artistic license. "All is fair in love and war" also comes to mind. License allows us to step outside of the norm or the "rules" and to claim legitimacy for the stance that we then take. The simple juxtaposition of love and war make me uneasy. War, it seems, always works outside of the rules; the difference is who is held accountable. From Noam Chomsky's perspective only the loser is held accountable. Right now I am not able to come up with a descriptor or qualifier for love, to develop this thought any further.

If we can easily claim an exception or an exemption, that is, to exercise license, are there really any rules? If not, what is it that guides human behavior, if there is a guide at all? I need to separate guiding principles from norms of behavior. That leaves me with the distinction between universal principles and very specific, variable, and even conflicting norms.

As I write this entry, I find myself listening over and over to "Somewhere Out in Mud Brook" by Michael Perry and the Long Beds. I don't know what it is about the tune. Mud Brook is a real place--some distance south of the home place and east of Highway 40. The tune could well be describing a real McCoy. The character spoken of in the tune has found a way, that works for him, to sort through the universal principle/specific norm conundrum. Ah! The Sage of Mud Brook.