Blitiri
presented nullity under
the guise of innocence.
Ignorance and innocence, which part is worth savoring?
Nothing is saved.
Nunc stans and vulgar time
keep the repetition kept.
Another gem… with a crunchy centre 
I’m not sure if you’re stating something deeper than I see or just slashing your verbal calligraphy pen across the paper?
This is what I see:
Non-sense words pretending to be innocent, show nothing
Ignorance or innocence? which is worth savouring?
Nothing is saved because eternity and time
keep it repeating.
km2_33, you are too good to me. 
there is nothing like an emoticon to get through our feelings.
if a person is innocent, aren’t they also ignorant? if we rid ourselves of ignorance, do we rid ourselves of innocence?
This is my question.
That part is the part I understood most, but having read it afresh today, the whole piece is much clearer… and even more beautiful
I love the quiet sophistication that runs through the meter, phrasing, and meaning. That’s difficult to achieve in one or two areas but, when achieved in all three, it’s magic.
Of course we do, the paradoxical kick in the ass being that having rid oneself of ignorance one cannot go back to being ignorant, one cannot make the choice about whether to rid oneself of ignorance without having already done it…
Now that’s something that appears to be deeper than it really is…
I think you’re only addressing half the poem / question SIATD. The poem is about ‘vulgar time’ AND ‘nunc stans’.
I agree that in “vulgar time,” (beautiful description A ) the more you rid yourself of ignorance; the more you lose innocence. But, when it comes to ‘nunc sans’ – the eternal, ever-present, ever-creating NOW – this crude false dichotomy, falls away.
Take Jesus Christ, for instance. He’s believed to be the direct opposite of ignorance yet was also said to be the most innocent. Saints and spiritual experiences hint at a state where the ‘laws of opposites’ don’t exist. On this plane, knowing (the opposite of ignorance) and innocence, are one in the same.
Is this simply Disney spirituality where we get everything we want and everyone is happy? I don’t think so. The idea can be supported by what we find in the logical, physical world. The further we move into the very small, quantum realms or the very large, astrological worlds, the more opposites seem to merge and become one in the same.
km2_33:
I agree with you. I think there are different ways of understanding innocence. one way is the vulgar way, the culturally predominant way of understanding innocence.
i also wonder if innocence is really possible.
but, another way to understand innocence is through accepting responsibility for what we know and then abstaining from using the power of knowledge for ill ends.
There is also a lot of Heidegger in here. i’ve been concerned with his criticism of nunc stans and his ideas about vulgar time. i appreciate his critique of the “tyranny of the present” and his saying that those who believe themselves to be only in the present are inauthentic because they are forgetting who they really are…which is always “towards-ish” and future thinking before present in the sense of NOW.
i also disagree with Heidegger to some extent. I’m running Schopenhauer up against Heidegger here a little bit.
we can imprison ourselves into our supposed fates if we don’t let ourselves remember the freedom inherent in nunc stans. we are always ignorant to some degree. we aren’t omniscient. so we can pause from our forwardness to make sure we aren’t really being rather backward.
so, in a reversal of what i wrote earlier: because we are all damned to some form of ignorance, aren’t we all always a little innocent?