That’s the final line from my poem “Geodes” about Sept. 11, or rather about one man’s reaction to losing a woman he loved that day.
I hate that poem, was glad I wrote it, hate it anyway. Hate that it exists. Love that it exists. Hate that I felt the need to write it. Hate that I needed to write it. Glad — glad? — that I did.
Everything is a metaphor, and nothing really hurts, or feels good, or is beautiful until it is interpreted. All the works of words and energy devoted to our perceptions exist only to damage our experience of things.
If poets put down their pens in order to live, would poetry not exist anyway?
That line I wrote is true, but are we better off if we speak the names? Or will we be better off if we let them exist and listen to a god that whispers without demanding that we shout and exalt any of the names?
Dark Matter 
March 30th, 2005 at 6:10 am
If poets put down their pens in order to live, would poetry not exist anyway?
(This was initially intended to be a syllogism, but that didn’t happen)
I also feel that “damage” happens in the short-term with the end-result being part of a healing process.
March 30th, 2005 at 6:10 am
If poets put down their pens in order to live, would poetry not exist anyway?
(This was initially intended to be a syllogism, but that didn’t happen)
I also feel that “damage” happens in the short-term with the end-result being part of a healing process.
March 30th, 2005 at 6:10 am
If poets put down their pens in order to live, would poetry not exist anyway?
(This was initially intended to be a syllogism, but that didn’t happen)
I also feel that “damage” happens in the short-term with the end-result being part of a healing process.
March 30th, 2005 at 6:10 am
If poets put down their pens in order to live, would poetry not exist anyway?
(This was initially intended to be a syllogism, but that didn’t happen)
I also feel that “damage” happens in the short-term with the end-result being part of a healing process.
March 30th, 2005 at 6:10 am
If poets put down their pens in order to live, would poetry not exist anyway?
(This was initially intended to be a syllogism, but that didn’t happen)
I also feel that “damage” happens in the short-term with the end-result being part of a healing process.
March 30th, 2005 at 6:10 am
If poets put down their pens in order to live, would poetry not exist anyway?
(This was initially intended to be a syllogism, but that didn’t happen)
I also feel that “damage” happens in the short-term with the end-result being part of a healing process.
March 30th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Poetry would exist.
But I wouldn’t remember what’s important as often.
Or maybe I’d be a hermit.
March 30th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Poetry would exist.
But I wouldn’t remember what’s important as often.
Or maybe I’d be a hermit.
March 30th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Poetry would exist.
But I wouldn’t remember what’s important as often.
Or maybe I’d be a hermit.
March 30th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Poetry would exist.
But I wouldn’t remember what’s important as often.
Or maybe I’d be a hermit.
March 30th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Poetry would exist.
But I wouldn’t remember what’s important as often.
Or maybe I’d be a hermit.
March 30th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Poetry would exist.
But I wouldn’t remember what’s important as often.
Or maybe I’d be a hermit.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
there are many who see the definition for god as that which is unknowable, unnamable, the mystery.
Actually, it is the only definition that makes good sense.
that’s what is nice about aum. all vowel sounds are suppose to be contained wthin, when pronounced properly. The opening vowel sounds, to the open sounds, to the closing, closed and silence and around again. I guess that inverse of yhwh, really. nevermind.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
there are many who see the definition for god as that which is unknowable, unnamable, the mystery.
Actually, it is the only definition that makes good sense.
that’s what is nice about aum. all vowel sounds are suppose to be contained wthin, when pronounced properly. The opening vowel sounds, to the open sounds, to the closing, closed and silence and around again. I guess that inverse of yhwh, really. nevermind.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
there are many who see the definition for god as that which is unknowable, unnamable, the mystery.
Actually, it is the only definition that makes good sense.
that’s what is nice about aum. all vowel sounds are suppose to be contained wthin, when pronounced properly. The opening vowel sounds, to the open sounds, to the closing, closed and silence and around again. I guess that inverse of yhwh, really. nevermind.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
there are many who see the definition for god as that which is unknowable, unnamable, the mystery.
Actually, it is the only definition that makes good sense.
that’s what is nice about aum. all vowel sounds are suppose to be contained wthin, when pronounced properly. The opening vowel sounds, to the open sounds, to the closing, closed and silence and around again. I guess that inverse of yhwh, really. nevermind.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
there are many who see the definition for god as that which is unknowable, unnamable, the mystery.
Actually, it is the only definition that makes good sense.
that’s what is nice about aum. all vowel sounds are suppose to be contained wthin, when pronounced properly. The opening vowel sounds, to the open sounds, to the closing, closed and silence and around again. I guess that inverse of yhwh, really. nevermind.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
there are many who see the definition for god as that which is unknowable, unnamable, the mystery.
Actually, it is the only definition that makes good sense.
that’s what is nice about aum. all vowel sounds are suppose to be contained wthin, when pronounced properly. The opening vowel sounds, to the open sounds, to the closing, closed and silence and around again. I guess that inverse of yhwh, really. nevermind.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
In your text there is an implied choice to name things or write or whatever.
As if I didn’t write, I wouldn’t have the same thoughts, or muse over the same things. I didn’t write poetry for many years. But I really did. I still carried words in my head. I still named things. I still scribbled things in the margins of notebooks(absently) and forgot about them.
You could convince a coyote(if they were like humans)that his howl was all wrong and not beneficial. Still, secretly(or not), I think he’d howl anyway.
“exist only to damage our experience of things” – now that is a perception and a value judement. “damage”
sure, our interpretation of our experiences are influenced by our earlier perceptions, but I think damage is too, um subjective.
Actually, I tihnk you cover all this in your post. Man, I like reading your journal.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
In your text there is an implied choice to name things or write or whatever.
As if I didn’t write, I wouldn’t have the same thoughts, or muse over the same things. I didn’t write poetry for many years. But I really did. I still carried words in my head. I still named things. I still scribbled things in the margins of notebooks(absently) and forgot about them.
You could convince a coyote(if they were like humans)that his howl was all wrong and not beneficial. Still, secretly(or not), I think he’d howl anyway.
“exist only to damage our experience of things” – now that is a perception and a value judement. “damage”
sure, our interpretation of our experiences are influenced by our earlier perceptions, but I think damage is too, um subjective.
Actually, I tihnk you cover all this in your post. Man, I like reading your journal.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
In your text there is an implied choice to name things or write or whatever.
As if I didn’t write, I wouldn’t have the same thoughts, or muse over the same things. I didn’t write poetry for many years. But I really did. I still carried words in my head. I still named things. I still scribbled things in the margins of notebooks(absently) and forgot about them.
You could convince a coyote(if they were like humans)that his howl was all wrong and not beneficial. Still, secretly(or not), I think he’d howl anyway.
“exist only to damage our experience of things” – now that is a perception and a value judement. “damage”
sure, our interpretation of our experiences are influenced by our earlier perceptions, but I think damage is too, um subjective.
Actually, I tihnk you cover all this in your post. Man, I like reading your journal.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
In your text there is an implied choice to name things or write or whatever.
As if I didn’t write, I wouldn’t have the same thoughts, or muse over the same things. I didn’t write poetry for many years. But I really did. I still carried words in my head. I still named things. I still scribbled things in the margins of notebooks(absently) and forgot about them.
You could convince a coyote(if they were like humans)that his howl was all wrong and not beneficial. Still, secretly(or not), I think he’d howl anyway.
“exist only to damage our experience of things” – now that is a perception and a value judement. “damage”
sure, our interpretation of our experiences are influenced by our earlier perceptions, but I think damage is too, um subjective.
Actually, I tihnk you cover all this in your post. Man, I like reading your journal.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
In your text there is an implied choice to name things or write or whatever.
As if I didn’t write, I wouldn’t have the same thoughts, or muse over the same things. I didn’t write poetry for many years. But I really did. I still carried words in my head. I still named things. I still scribbled things in the margins of notebooks(absently) and forgot about them.
You could convince a coyote(if they were like humans)that his howl was all wrong and not beneficial. Still, secretly(or not), I think he’d howl anyway.
“exist only to damage our experience of things” – now that is a perception and a value judement. “damage”
sure, our interpretation of our experiences are influenced by our earlier perceptions, but I think damage is too, um subjective.
Actually, I tihnk you cover all this in your post. Man, I like reading your journal.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
In your text there is an implied choice to name things or write or whatever.
As if I didn’t write, I wouldn’t have the same thoughts, or muse over the same things. I didn’t write poetry for many years. But I really did. I still carried words in my head. I still named things. I still scribbled things in the margins of notebooks(absently) and forgot about them.
You could convince a coyote(if they were like humans)that his howl was all wrong and not beneficial. Still, secretly(or not), I think he’d howl anyway.
“exist only to damage our experience of things” – now that is a perception and a value judement. “damage”
sure, our interpretation of our experiences are influenced by our earlier perceptions, but I think damage is too, um subjective.
Actually, I tihnk you cover all this in your post. Man, I like reading your journal.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Interesting bit I found in a book of ecological philosophy called The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams:
God, in the Hebrew tradition, has many names. His/Its ultimate name is YHWH, sometimes pronounced “Yahweh” but supposedly impossible to actually pronounce correctly.
Some Hebrew scholars have reason to believe that the name YHWH is unpronounceable because the first syllable is actually said on an inhale, the second on an exhale, thus completing a whole breath cycle. You can try it at home.
So maybe God’s name is supposed to be half backwards, half inwards. And pronounced as close to correctly as can be, it’s almost impossible to say louder than a whisper. Half of it we say only to ourselves.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Interesting bit I found in a book of ecological philosophy called The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams:
God, in the Hebrew tradition, has many names. His/Its ultimate name is YHWH, sometimes pronounced “Yahweh” but supposedly impossible to actually pronounce correctly.
Some Hebrew scholars have reason to believe that the name YHWH is unpronounceable because the first syllable is actually said on an inhale, the second on an exhale, thus completing a whole breath cycle. You can try it at home.
So maybe God’s name is supposed to be half backwards, half inwards. And pronounced as close to correctly as can be, it’s almost impossible to say louder than a whisper. Half of it we say only to ourselves.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Interesting bit I found in a book of ecological philosophy called The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams:
God, in the Hebrew tradition, has many names. His/Its ultimate name is YHWH, sometimes pronounced “Yahweh” but supposedly impossible to actually pronounce correctly.
Some Hebrew scholars have reason to believe that the name YHWH is unpronounceable because the first syllable is actually said on an inhale, the second on an exhale, thus completing a whole breath cycle. You can try it at home.
So maybe God’s name is supposed to be half backwards, half inwards. And pronounced as close to correctly as can be, it’s almost impossible to say louder than a whisper. Half of it we say only to ourselves.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Interesting bit I found in a book of ecological philosophy called The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams:
God, in the Hebrew tradition, has many names. His/Its ultimate name is YHWH, sometimes pronounced “Yahweh” but supposedly impossible to actually pronounce correctly.
Some Hebrew scholars have reason to believe that the name YHWH is unpronounceable because the first syllable is actually said on an inhale, the second on an exhale, thus completing a whole breath cycle. You can try it at home.
So maybe God’s name is supposed to be half backwards, half inwards. And pronounced as close to correctly as can be, it’s almost impossible to say louder than a whisper. Half of it we say only to ourselves.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Interesting bit I found in a book of ecological philosophy called The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams:
God, in the Hebrew tradition, has many names. His/Its ultimate name is YHWH, sometimes pronounced “Yahweh” but supposedly impossible to actually pronounce correctly.
Some Hebrew scholars have reason to believe that the name YHWH is unpronounceable because the first syllable is actually said on an inhale, the second on an exhale, thus completing a whole breath cycle. You can try it at home.
So maybe God’s name is supposed to be half backwards, half inwards. And pronounced as close to correctly as can be, it’s almost impossible to say louder than a whisper. Half of it we say only to ourselves.
March 29th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Interesting bit I found in a book of ecological philosophy called The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams:
God, in the Hebrew tradition, has many names. His/Its ultimate name is YHWH, sometimes pronounced “Yahweh” but supposedly impossible to actually pronounce correctly.
Some Hebrew scholars have reason to believe that the name YHWH is unpronounceable because the first syllable is actually said on an inhale, the second on an exhale, thus completing a whole breath cycle. You can try it at home.
So maybe God’s name is supposed to be half backwards, half inwards. And pronounced as close to correctly as can be, it’s almost impossible to say louder than a whisper. Half of it we say only to ourselves.