…which I eschew. There are a number of reasons for this; however this post is not directly about these reasons. What I find myself pondering at the moment is this: Some awards have cash prizes associated with them. The Nobel, I believe, has as much as a Million of some kind of dollars, pounds, roubles, yen, or pesos. How much would have to be in the award, I wonder before my resolve would fail? My sweetheart says, regarding me, that it would be a lot more than I think it would.
I find such things hard to visualise. I think of the scenario wherein an armoured car falls over and $100 bills go flying all over the road. Would I run around stuffing them in my shirt like many others would? I always thought: “Yes, I would.” But at some point, I realised that I would not. I would, however, watch the scene with morbid fascination. I am not sure when I realised that she was right about this. But came as a surprise when I did.
So, perhaps I should believe my wife in such matters. Come to think of it now, we have both turned down inheritances because there were strings attached. At the time, I thought nothing of it. It seemed second nature to refuse such a thing. (And trust me when I say, that both instances, we most certainly could have used the money. Needed it.) We were not well off–especially not then.
I think I might falter around a million dollars. But my wife doubts it. Sometimes, regarding these awards, someone has no choice. One cannot decline the nomination or the award, one can merely refuse to acknowledge the prise. I am not at all sure what happens to the cash part of the award if one does not accept it; I am not curious enough to look it up. In any case, a sonnet writer is not likely to earn such a prise. And since I probably do not fit the narrative which is desired in the giving of such prises, I doubt very much if I would be a candidate for any such prise, regardless of what kind of art at whatever level of acclaim or notoriety I might earn. Much like Mr. Borges, to which Christian Mahai refers in one of his posts.
David Emeron: Sonnets 
you are welcome. And thank you. For, as Bayes Theorem applied here, would also predict, were you a random person–which I feel very strongly you are not–that you might very well take such a comment as mine much too personally. I am very happy that you do not. It may, or may not, have taken effort on your part, but regardless, I so appreciate it, because, as I mentioned in my post, I do believe you to be a quite genuine person, and as such, not at all duplicitous. Regardless of our relative interests in some current event,; I really do feel that you “call ‘em as you see ‘em.”
My interest in the abstract eschewing current events is more than a whim or a default state, however, but one inspired also by abstract mathematics:
If, for example I am made quite miserable by being involved emotionally in some issue (in which my involvement will have very little impact) I am, in fact being used by those, whoever they may be, who have a greater interest and/or desire and/or ability to impact said issue. This puts a bit of a lie–at least in my mind–to the concept of the “if we all know/do a little then maybe ultimately…” type of argument. If the sum total of my impact is far less than the sum total of my personal misery (even when simply emotional duress) Then it is reasonable to assume there are many like me–that is, in the same position. This is true whether they court or approve of their state of misery or not–or might count themselves (vainly) among the activists in such an event, or not.
Now take the sum total of all the impact all of us “minimal impact” people will have. While it is true, it may be significant, it is also true that the sum total of all our miseries together is a huge sum. Such a sum cannot help but having–in a most unpredictable way (owing to catastrophe mathematics)–a profoundly negative effect on society in general, and in particular, the immediate world of each of us “marginals impact” people.
Think on this for a moment. We all may be being used as a cog in someone else’s wheel; and whether this cause is just or not–whether or not this wheel is rolling in a just direction (if indeed such is even possible)– the sum total of the misery, due to the method and amount of our impact vs. the some total of our misery will have a far greater negative impact on the world–and each of our individual slices of it.
I am not imparting to you any of this in order that you might change your opinion on whether you, or I for that matter, should or should not participate in some cause or interest; I am simply explaining, in as succinct a manner as I can, why I pay attention to that which I pay attention, and why I take no interest in such things as those in which I take no interest.
Then again, our hearts and minds are fair enough one thing, in reality. And one must follow ones heart, I think. Which can in this case, be reframed to mean we must do what we think right. This is not a contradiction. I am not what one might call “neurotypical,” and as such, I see patterns in complex interactions which, I am constantly reminded, others do not, or cannot see–at least not without some careful explanation.
This might make me seem heartless to some: however, if I perceive the pattern as I have outlined above, and chose instead to do the opposite, I may not appear heartless to they who might think me heartless as I am now; but I would in actual point of fact be quite heartless–and quite deliberately so. I therefore chose not to be heartless, all the while risking the appearance of such; because, I am not heartless–which I think, like them or not, one could not help but know from reading my sonnets.