This is most beautiful writing. If we were, you and I, sitting accros from each other over dinner, and then, perhaps, vodka, I think I would have many questions regarding what you have read in the past–what writers you most enjoy; which, you hate to love, or love to hate, or the other permutations thereof. Wonderful and touching.
Daily Archives: Wednesday, January 7th, 2015
Christians: Instead of Swallowing – Look First | Tea with a Pirate
Thanks for the insight – and now found time to reply! Yes, agree very much with what you say about graphs. However, the graphs here are ultra simple and barely in context in order to lure an audience to a post that is not a be all and end all.
I appreciate the mathematic analogy and contextualising, but the main issue is the raising of awareness of a supposed audience with an alarming degree of ignorance and either designed or triumphant “laissez-faire” attittude to news of the conflict: designed if they have religious caprices that include god’s chosen people and all that, and triumphant if they actually believe that North American media is actually merely reporting the conflict.
The analysis of the graphs come from the mathmetician, my alarm comes from your acknowledgement that among many you have some lack of understanding of the conflict and have minimal acquaintance with the background. To me that makes your position inevitable. Allow me further reading of your well written comment to further digress shortly – thanks!
via Christians: Instead of Swallowing – Look First | Tea with a Pirate.
WHAT WAS (POETRY)
I like this poem very much.
As for the prompt/picture, here are my two cents worth, so to speak:
When it involves poetry, or in fact any act of creation, there is no such thing as living in the past. I know this very well, as I have witnessed the search for novelty in art result ultimately in mere unintelligibility; the unconscious backlash from which results not so much in living in the past, but to some artists, choosing to master, or even refine older forms, and some to chose newer forms or invent such forms. Materials and subjects may always change. Therefore all new art is new, regardless of whether it is in an older style or a newer.
There is one poetry critic, whose name I will not mention here, that suggests that all subjects have been dealt with in poetry. But that is a ridiculous notion as well. I may well have read, for example, all the love poetry throughout the centuries and found nothing that made sense or “resonated,” so to speak, with what I feel, and think. Then, perhaps, in the year 2020, I happen to read some poetry that our dear Latoya has written on the subject and I might say or think: “Yes! That’s it exactly! That’s the way it really is for me!” That is newness.
And what if our Latoya has decided, for what ever reason, to master some older forms in 2015, and perhaps writes these poems in 2020 in the style of Greek Odes, simply because she likes the sound of them now that she has come to appreciate such a sound. So, am I then reacting to something old or something new? Obviously it is new, because all new poetry–new art–is new. In fact when I encounter a 500 year old poem in 2020 for the first time, it may strike me the same way. This poem is new to me.
In any event, I loved this poem and am going to reblog it–am reblogging it even as I sit here writing this in the bitter watches of the night. This has the sound when I read it aloud of loose couplet rhymes, and the line breaks punctuate it nicely. Lovely. I hope you will keep writing.
Was a love I couldn’t control
Washed up tears, aggressively stole
Running through trees
Rose bushes and oceans abound
Lost in time that had such a beautiful sound
Leave me to dream
Denial hates to be found
Playing between the sheets, blankets, pillows and all
Hearing the voices but never once answering to its call
Please wake me from this forbidden craft
That hides itself fully
Behind religious mask
The lust and betrayal
Well, it’s really hard to tame
And it could never be the same
Because sensations knows my name
From past games
I know there are many ways to avoid
Such gut wrenching pain
Love is really powerful
And can drive the strongest king insane
Pleasurable pain
Strong enough to awaken the most forbidden sin
Love will stir your heart up
Take it back
Strengthen it
Only to begin the madness again
Put me back together
Because I’ve…
View original post 35 more words
Sonnet I: To S. T. C.
He sung of Sisters close and sweet; and taught
Of sea and wealth; he droned a mournful view
Of Death as fine as Death himself. He brought
A smile to my lips when all they knew
Was fear; and to a barren cheek he drew
The first and only tear. A place, he claimed,
Of no return, that no man ever knew;
A quickly fleeting image, And he named
It “Xanadu;” he dreamt a man beyond
A man within that Sunny Dome; An he
Should Drink of Paradise that dream had spawned
His home. I know he must have lived to see
Those Crystal Caves of Ice; For I, enticed
By Honey Dew, have drunk of Paradise.
Intro 1: To Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Of Sisters he sung
And of Ancient Mariners;
And wrote of such death
As made death seem fine.
He brought joy and even tears
When he penned such depth.
And when he sung of
Xanadu and Kubla Kahn,
And his caves of Ice,
I dreamt along with
Him about his honey dew
And his paradise.
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.