--Elite Writer Alias: Outlaw Name: Marc ASL: Edging on 27. Bio: [ Quick Bio ] Website:[ Education ] Days Away: 32 Life Story: Lazy af. [ Ignore User ]
Favorites: 39 Forum Posts: 348 Shoutbox Posts: 0 RP Posts: 52 Signup Date: 4264 D 11.68 Years 1.17 Decades 142.13 Months 609.14 Weeks 4.264000e+8 Heart Beats -There you go eggman Quote: Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet.
While I am waiting to respond to your last message more fully, I heard this song and remembered how excellent the lyrics are in the vein of what we have been discussing.
If you are interested, you can look the song up on YouTube. It's sung with a quirky British accent and is so jangly and upbeat it's almost sickening, and yet... it's catchy as heck.
The Lucksmiths sing "Sunlight In A Jar"
We've never been much chop
At all that sensual stuff
One of us always seems to stop
Before the other's had enough
Like a self-help manual that's been written in Braille
It seems the more that we touch
The more we learn about our failings
I'm struck speechless by the nape of your neck
But your requests and suggestions
Have a similar effect
A litany of prettiness and pettiness, too
I reckon every second second
We come up with something new
I tried to write an opera for us
But I didn't get that far
'Cause trying to sum you up in song
Is like catching sunlight in a jar
Complex, completely credible love
The kind that is made, not handed to you from above
Is difficult to talk about and harder to write
Like the rhythm of a pulse, or the contours of firelight
Overblown libretto and a sumptuous score
Could never contain the contradictions I adore
We can just be chaos and then something aligns
It's so hard to contain, maintain it or define it
I tried to write another chorus
But I didn't get that far
'Cause trying to sum you up in song
Is like catching sunlight in a jar
It's like catching sunlight in a jar
I appreciate that you are able to look at the poem objectively and be critical. This is good.
Honestly this was a situation where the thoughts themselves were infinitely more expansive, concise, and rapturous than the writing was able to convey. I was also taking a stab at being lovingly erotic if you will, and the exploded suns, etc, were my lame attempts at referencing orgasmic pleasure. Maybe it was too subtle, or maybe too thinly veiled, I can not tell. It was new territory.
It started out as an idea, and I kept chewing on it as walked to work, completed mundane tasks, listened to music. I had beautiful and detailed pictures in my mind that may have been expressed better if I was a painter rather than a poet. Two people, facing each other, their pupils wide and dark and full of life, and matching galaxies begin to spin, confirming their compatibility; their depth of longing. Two people lying on the grass, lazing indolently under a tree, exploring every aspect of each other, not just physically, but mentally, spiritually.
After a while I became frustrated. It was like what I imagine Windows must do with their programs; play around with it for a while, then send it out into the world to see what kind of ripples come back. A prototype.
I find love poems exceedingly difficult to write. The classics did this so well, and often in rhyme too. The subject has been covered so thoroughly that almost anything sounds cliché.
This poem feels so awkward I'm almost embarrassed to read it. I'm glad you were able to take the time to delve into it a little and uncover some of the issues. The references you made to real science were both helpful and fascinating. I don't want to write for people who won't understand the references so much as for those who will. Poetry and science make an enthralling blend, with logic and fact meeting magic and art. This is my goal.
I find it interesting to wonder if some of the strangeness expresses some of my own feelings about love; the wanting, the holding back. That little bit of fear about being so open and vulnerable, but also the curiosity; how deep does it go?
The man who was the subject of this poem is the man I married. For over two years we were engaged in a long distance relationship, traveling between two countries. We communicated by text, phone, and video, and there were lots of times we had nothing to do but talk and develop our sense of each other in all ways but physical. That period of time was literally rife with stretches of intense tension, followed by short bursts of intense gratification. I'm sure that added to it in some way.
Well, I've made no indication that lying is exclusively wrong - I don't differentiate between wrong and right at all; It's just a matter of the lie being a product of negativity, though admittedly I'm not so sure. My mind feels raw in my skull, as if it's falling away from the physical world. This bud was heavy, I feel kinda numb...That's the sincere definition for it.
If lying is not circumstantial, then what is it ensued by? Self-interest as in putting yourself as superior to others. The golden rule can either stand alone or stand in the corner of religious teachings; one ignored and highly unrecognized by a person's impulses and drives in life. It's departing from one perspective and entering all others as an act of living, not for something in return. It isn't for an object, and not as a sacrifice - And I'm not telling you to act this way, I'm simply pointing out that there are three fields of energy that cause reactions and three fields of life where the physical body marries the mind and the mind marries one consciousness.
I must be missing something, but I never personificated life, I simply gave it incentive to become - But about that later. Really, its initial context used in the passage was an object for analysis, not to encase it with some divine arch.
I literally live by my own religion that I've compiled throughout the past couple years - subconsciously, that is.
Anyway, how did we get here??? Along the way I sort of lost my point.
It isn't difficult to figure out the purpose for something - specifically a tool such as lying, but it does take a rational person to ask "Why?" and why exactly would anyone care to build something over a dishonest foundation? To get away with it, to make it bigger and better, or just to spite someone else. Another unequivocal factor to this is that many are foolish enough to surrender to falsities, but that's another conversation for another time.
Yes, in some cases, I'll agree that maneuvering around the truth has benefited even the virtuous, but if it weren't for someone else's negation, there'd be no need to lie at all. Lying is not static behavior to humans, it's choice, and this revolves around a person's peers and desires. It's spectacularly brilliant that we're able to ascertain the similarities between man and animal; that fine line between instinct and ration, but what proves man's superiority when we constantly try to escape the reality in which we rule? Our creations represent their ultimate purpose, and I had never seen something so beautiful as the Taj Mahal, and never something so overpowering as Notre Dame, but even their individual aesthetics have lived much longer than the concepts they were built upon. With this being said, would you say that the point is moot? If life is prosperous and unending, why not let live a prosperous truth? In the end, all things full of self are...Well, selfish, and it's only because of selfishness that life is unfair.
It seems we seek opposing knowledge, as I only care to learn what only I will see, in hopes that I carry it with me for lives to come. I only ask questions that a small group of people know the answer to (I thank any and all gods for Quora), and many of them blow a damn gasket at the slightest inquiry made by the layman, but I understand why. It isn't the task of understanding something from one's POV, it's literally putting yourself in their shoes - wearing a person's skin and figuring out why. Once a person has felt, seen, and met a certain number of people, then proceeded to relate to them with not an ounce of empathy left over, it isn't hard to reason.
Why does a person act that way? Moreover, why do I act this way? What does one have to do with the other?
I've always had a tough time with sharing and talking to others, which may have amounted to that aggressive attitude I keep coming back to. I've often wondered if it's that I deem myself to be some exclusive, high-end product with a LIMITED TIME ONLY! tag clipped to my sleeve, but I digress for the time being.
I just blame society and all its distractions - Being what initially started up this conversation.
How would you measure the value of something intangible? I can see what a person doesn't know, but how do I see what they do know? Many classmates of mine learn by using the senses that I often neglect ( i . e . listening), but because I know how to devise a shortcut by working backwards in order to solve a formula for linear recursion, could they do the same as I do? The reason why I think not is because their ways of solving things and doing things are no less significant than mine.
"friends are just friends because they're useful to us in some way", in some way of some way, I think you're right, but familiarity isn't exactly equivalent to comfort (referring to the purpose most people find in friendships: relation, likeliness - someone who reminds me of me). Love, but true in its essence - free from chemical interference - I'd say, is worth all the time in the world, but I've never felt this kind of love for a person once after that time's been spent. It's after time, and change - though we do not change - that I'd say love loses itself; scattered throughout our lives like fractions do to our impression of time. This doesn't mean I haven't loved in any other form, however, and it's because that, that I can understand ulterior motives.
I'd say friendship, under the context of love, is subjective in itself - Perhaps love, in general, is subjective. Everything else is just passing time.
As the saying goes, "Most people worry about their own bellies and other people's souls when we all ought to worry about our own souls and other people's bellies" (Israel Salanter), and I rather fancy sticking to that idea.
I don't trust at all, but I make logical decisions. I don't treat things like they're all about me - I make sure to take the circumstances into consideration. Now, where would we be if we pledged to make that sort of consideration on a day-to-day basis?
Oh, but I never did say that I scrutinize the system because I scrutinize the people - In fact, I'd argue the contrary. I remember not to take take things personally and I certainly wouldn't long to waste my time with fleeting relationships - Only because there's so little time and, alas, few people to engage with by choice.
The following is my personal perspective of things - Hypocritical seeing as I so desperately destine to lose my self, but hear me out.
If we could all remember that there is no issue, I wonder if we could simply remember that it's the idea of one that throws reality into disarray. Time works with our decisions, and I firmly believe that if this were both an educated and wide-spread practice, a capitalist democracy could work.
But there are people without this ability and, unfortunately, greed is the primary corruption of all systems. As of now. Some days, I'd propose there's been major progression.
Perhaps you'd say I have trust-issues...That, at least, would be your conclusion if I were to continue.