Untitled
I do not take steps forward, nor do I take steps back
neither do I take steps right or left
I’ve trained my eyes to look around and realize
to comprehend both birth and death
to understand the proud irreverant chest
and the soft sentimental breath
to coaptate coagulate to apply connect
theses two earthly fires
and discover a strength required in rest
To only dive up, fly, hover above cusp
to settle and search
the moments of past days from out of the dirt
And so I begin to sift tediously
through the sharp shattered fragments
clues from past ages vaguely familiar appear
in their severity but I shall never again repossess
their knowledge unless
I can fight through the fever dreams that they inspire
and remember to isolate what their meanings were to me
before time again douses these insubstantial fires
concordant this poem is quite intriquing!
How will one ever discover a strength that can conquer dualism?
It seems that most tend to think that dualism has a greater power over us, but I disagree.
What promoted you to write this?
How will one ever discover a strength that can conquer dualism?
To be honest I’m not sure, but I think it has to deal with power combined with humility. A potency that is not spoken of or revealed, accept to ones self and in certain circumstances in which it is necessary. The trouble with that is how to define necessity, for why would their or should their be any constraints. To be propelled by the ideal of truth or justice or to concede a nuetrality. O r to desire a destructive influence.
A duality that I can think of is ones public self and ones private self. What is it to bring ones private self into a public sphere, to place demands upon people or society. This is kind of what I mentioned in the other thread concerning the control of self and the desire to control others. Influence would be a better word to use other than control. I’m confused about this duality myself, because although it seems to trace back to conflicting desires or drives, I do not know how to define them in their proper forms, or in their detailed functions. So I dont know.
I wrote the poem in 1998 on a mini bus or tram at one of Londons airports, while I was being ferryed to my plane. I distinctly remeber the people that occupied the bus I was in were staring at me as if I was insane, and I probably was to certain extent. Mybe because that kind of thing is in “bad form” in public. Why did I write it. I think it was necessity a stabilization of my entity by writing a reminder of a state of mind and directed thought. It was written in a pause, a motionless repose. A moment emotional turbulence after a minor struggle.
So you think that there is such a thing a public and private self?
I don’t at least not for me.
I enjoyed your response of incorporating both power and humility as part of your strength for conquering dualism.
Your’e brief account about when/why you wrote the poem is intriguing! So I am interested in what you do. Are you some sort of Philosophy professor or are you a hermit? I am asking this simply becaue I am curious about who I am having these thrilling conversations with and my curiousity usually gets the best of me. So don’t respond if you like, but I would be pleased if you do! You seem quite interesting, especially since you said that people thougth you were insane! Thanks!
So you think that there is such a thing a public and private self?
I don’t at least not for me.
Well it does depend on the person. Certain people are prone to create personality facades, politicians for example, and maybe those facades are integrated to varying degrees into the private self, but still outside of cases like this I do think everyone does possess a seperation of the public and the private, even it is only because of a lack of understanding within communication. But in this sense it is the perception of another person viewing you which creates the difference, and to that extent it is not the individual will which creates or feels compelled to create a false picture of who they really are. It is more of just an effect of the laws of individuality and the failings of language. I mean the question seems to be; Are you genuine, and sincere in who you are? or Do you compromise your self, and your true feelings, or opinions becuase of concepts of social duty and the like? Do you try and appear what you are not, and perpetuate a self deception in your own mind? Those seem to be the guidelines, albeit guidelines that could be improved upon, that lead to conceptions of what the dichotomy of the public and private self are. In this sense I absolutely believe you when you say that you dont think the dichotomy applies to you, because I have no reason not to.
As for what I do, well I work at a hotel, in fact I am at work right now, and I have the liberty to do this because it is 3 in the morning and everyone is either asleep or doing things I would prefer not to know about.
You know a couple weeks ago someone actually felt the need to ask me if there were any rules against having homosexual sex in the rooms, and then as if that wasnt enough he decided to tell me that he also enjoyed wearing womens clothing while doing it. No where near as glorious as being a hermit or a professor. But it does afford me a good deal of time alone, and that fact makes the compromise more tolerable. The compromise of doing a thing which I do not truly enjoy, and the goal of this, ideally it is a means to an end. In the absence of a professional career it is not all that difficult to tolerate.
I am in the mood to pick apart alot of what you have written about this untitled poem.
First going back to the poem:
What were the insubstantial fires that cause the dreams?
And can you fight “through” the fever dreams? If the dreams are a necessity of gaining the knowledge that you desire, wouldn’t it be a bit more appropriate to use “with” because “with” seems to better suggest the necessityof the dreams and the dreams connection to knowledge (but this is just what I think). Maybe you can explain whyyou used “through”.
What is “that kind of thing”?-writing the poem? How strange the people must be in London if they think writing in public is “bad form”. But if you were screaming these lines out from the top of your lungs as you wrote them, even I might stare at you, but then I would have to bust out laughing at myself and the other onlookers.
Anyway-kudos to you for the last statements of your explanation of whyyou wrote the poem. “it was a necessity a stabilization…writing a reminder of a state of mind…A moment of emotional turbulence after a minor struggle.” These few phrases almost fully sum up what promotes me to write my poems and create art.
As for your last post on this topic, you had mentioned that you worked at a hotel-Neat!-at least from the partial description of it. It seems like it can be quite amusing! But why do something that is not enjoyable? If it is to create a balance in this seemingly dualistic realm that some seem to live in, then the goal of having a job that is not fully enjoyable seems like it could be part of a possible answer, but what counter balances this?
And I thought that dualism can be conquered. Why not seek and obtain something that is enjoyable to you or for you? Why tolerate?
“What were the insubstantial fires that cause the dreams?”
The fires would be a longing, or any conflagration of the spirit. The dreams would be the memory of these contests that you have had before. Suffice it to say that if I, or you, or any one else for that matter, still struggle over principles, or ideas that you have had in the past, then you never learned the lesson that they could have proplled you into. If you are suffering recurrent themes in your inner perceptions then these fires are becoming insubstantial after a time, and you forget them until they appear again to you. Sometimes they never reappear and they are lost to you forever. If that is the case, then it is highly possible that you have begun to lose ground instead of gain, and with each passing year you become less than you were the year before.
Whether with is a better word to use than through is a good point. I am not really sure why I chose it over with. I’ll try and answer: through connotes a natural process or rather something that will naturally end of it’s own accord. With, in the context that it would be in the poem, would point to a conflict much like a combat. Fighting with a foe. And maybe that truly would be the better word becuase it is more direct, and it in fact proves a greater strength possibly. It points to a stance which is more upright, where as through presupposes an eventual end, regardless if you win or not. I never really thought about to be honest.
What is “that kind of thing”?-writing the poem?
People expect “normality” Any deviation from this is considered harshly whether it is screaming, adamantly thinking, jumping up and down and waving your arms, or any other public disturbance you can think of like violence maybe. I looked strange when I was writing the poem. I am sure that the people on the tram were just concerned about the state of my hold on sanity. Well let me put it this way. At the time I was writing that poem it was the most important thing to me in the world. My dedication to it had as an attribute a will to ignore distractions, which just happens to have the effect of making me seem a little nuts, because of physical mannerisms that are a little erratic. Because I was not willing to give the poem up because I was in a public place, the necessity of it drove me forward and I acted as though I would at home alone, with out any one to be shocked or curious by the way I was acting. I dont know if that answers your question. I hope it does.
As for toleration and work, I can assure you that it is not done to create a balance. I kind of think of it as penence. it’s a means to an end at the moment, and to change it takes time and a will. Ultimately I will do something more enjoyable, but ti wont be tommorrow or next week.