deepundergroundpoetry.com
HOW TO CREATE HAPPINESS
HOW TO CREATE HAPPINESS
Try to get the feeling that
you are loved by Jesus Christ.
You will see your soul is clear,
and all life will be so dear.
You will hear yourself croon
the same song whose lovely tune
charmed you when you were a child
when your mother sang and smiled.
You will feel the world will go
to an endless time with you,
and the sky with all its space
will reside in your small house.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Try to get the feeling that
you are loved by Jesus Christ.
You will see your soul is clear,
and all life will be so dear.
You will hear yourself croon
the same song whose lovely tune
charmed you when you were a child
when your mother sang and smiled.
You will feel the world will go
to an endless time with you,
and the sky with all its space
will reside in your small house.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 7th Jun 2020
| Edited 8th Jun 2020
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 1
reading list entries 1
comments 20
reads 372
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
I’ve tried to find the savior’s love.
But nothing from above
has come to me.
So does this mean
that if I look to see my soul
(if that’s a possibility
since souls are not material things),
will I then note that it’s opaque?
Look, look! For heaven’s sake,
I’ve writ again a drear, dull rhymed
pretentiously admonitory piece
that’s lacking music, any touch of vibrancy.
It’s flat, discursive in its pitch.
Apparently I do not give a fig
for choosing language that is fresh,
in worded ways filled up with grace
and, as it should be to be poetry
expressly figurative.
But nothing from above
has come to me.
So does this mean
that if I look to see my soul
(if that’s a possibility
since souls are not material things),
will I then note that it’s opaque?
Look, look! For heaven’s sake,
I’ve writ again a drear, dull rhymed
pretentiously admonitory piece
that’s lacking music, any touch of vibrancy.
It’s flat, discursive in its pitch.
Apparently I do not give a fig
for choosing language that is fresh,
in worded ways filled up with grace
and, as it should be to be poetry
expressly figurative.
8th Jun 2020 5:28pm
This sentence
You will find yourself croon
the same song ..."
should read
"You will find yourself croonING
the same song ..."
if your line is to be grammatically and conceptually correct.
You will find yourself croon
the same song ..."
should read
"You will find yourself croonING
the same song ..."
if your line is to be grammatically and conceptually correct.
8th Jun 2020 7:56pm
1-l admit my mistake. FIND YOURSELF CROONING.
In the same way you can't say:
I've tried to find the saviour's love
but nothing but nothing from above.
You must change BUT into BEING NOTHING. What do you think?
2- nothing from above has come to me Here you have to say WHICH HAS COME TO ME. WHICH can't be omitted here because it is subjective.
3- that if l look to see my soul, Here you must use a COMMA after the IF CLAUSE.
4- After pitch, you must use a full stop.
5-for choosing language, Here language should be A LANGUAGE.
In the same way you can't say:
I've tried to find the saviour's love
but nothing but nothing from above.
You must change BUT into BEING NOTHING. What do you think?
2- nothing from above has come to me Here you have to say WHICH HAS COME TO ME. WHICH can't be omitted here because it is subjective.
3- that if l look to see my soul, Here you must use a COMMA after the IF CLAUSE.
4- After pitch, you must use a full stop.
5-for choosing language, Here language should be A LANGUAGE.
"1-l admit my mistake. FIND YOURSELF CROONING."
Thank you.
"In the same way you can't say:
I've tried to find the saviour's love
but nothing but nothing from above."
But I didn't say that!
"You must change BUT into BEING NOTHING. What do you think?
I think you don't understand that what I'm doing here is making a statement about what has come to me from the place where, according to you, Jesus lives after I sought from him his love, i.e., nothing. So, no, I MUST NOT do anyhing of the sort.
"2- nothing from above has come to me Here you have to say WHICH HAS COME TO ME. WHICH can't be omitted here because it is subjective."
It's what? In any case, what I'm saying is that "nothing THAT [purportedly] comes from above has come to me. "Which" is the wrong word. You seem to have not taken into account that my phrase employs (and quite legitimately) ellipsis.
"3- that if l look to see my soul, Here you must use a COMMA after the IF CLAUSE."
Quite so. Corrected.
"4- After pitch, you must use a full stop."
Yes. Corrected.
5-for choosing language, Here language should be A LANGUAGE.
Really? Perhaps you'll write to Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Mary Oliver when in her _Rulesfor the Dance: A Handbook for Writing and Reading Metrical Verse_ to correct here for saying:
"There is LANGUAGE which is literal, discursive, rhetorical. And there is language which is figurative. Figurative language uses figures - that is, images, "pictures" of things - to provide clarification and intensity of thought. For grace, for illumination, for comparison, to create a language that is vibrant not only with ideas but also with the things of the world that we know through our sense experiences."
And you also need to correct the editors of the Cambridge English Dictionary for noting that the word means " a particular style of speaking or writing, for example, one that is used by the people doing a particular job"
and for giving the following example of the use of that word that shows not only that my usage is perfectly correct and that you are wrong to say that it needs an article.
"When you are giving instructions, make sure you use language that everyone can understand."
Thank you.
"In the same way you can't say:
I've tried to find the saviour's love
but nothing but nothing from above."
But I didn't say that!
"You must change BUT into BEING NOTHING. What do you think?
I think you don't understand that what I'm doing here is making a statement about what has come to me from the place where, according to you, Jesus lives after I sought from him his love, i.e., nothing. So, no, I MUST NOT do anyhing of the sort.
"2- nothing from above has come to me Here you have to say WHICH HAS COME TO ME. WHICH can't be omitted here because it is subjective."
It's what? In any case, what I'm saying is that "nothing THAT [purportedly] comes from above has come to me. "Which" is the wrong word. You seem to have not taken into account that my phrase employs (and quite legitimately) ellipsis.
"3- that if l look to see my soul, Here you must use a COMMA after the IF CLAUSE."
Quite so. Corrected.
"4- After pitch, you must use a full stop."
Yes. Corrected.
5-for choosing language, Here language should be A LANGUAGE.
Really? Perhaps you'll write to Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Mary Oliver when in her _Rulesfor the Dance: A Handbook for Writing and Reading Metrical Verse_ to correct here for saying:
"There is LANGUAGE which is literal, discursive, rhetorical. And there is language which is figurative. Figurative language uses figures - that is, images, "pictures" of things - to provide clarification and intensity of thought. For grace, for illumination, for comparison, to create a language that is vibrant not only with ideas but also with the things of the world that we know through our sense experiences."
And you also need to correct the editors of the Cambridge English Dictionary for noting that the word means " a particular style of speaking or writing, for example, one that is used by the people doing a particular job"
and for giving the following example of the use of that word that shows not only that my usage is perfectly correct and that you are wrong to say that it needs an article.
"When you are giving instructions, make sure you use language that everyone can understand."
8th Jun 2020 10:24pm
Thank you for admitting two mistakes.
Look up the word language in a good dictionary, and you find that your word should be countable. The dictionary can correct anyone, even the winner of a Pulitzer Prize.
I think you should admit the mistake of LANGUAGE, and the other two mistakes. How can you say: l've tried to find the Saviour love but nothing? Is this good English? I think it is only to you.
Which has come to me, WHICH here can't be omitted according to good grammar. Nothing that: and you don't write THAT. How can you omit the subjective relative pronoun. Or perhaps you can only do that according to your grammar..
Look up the word language in a good dictionary, and you find that your word should be countable. The dictionary can correct anyone, even the winner of a Pulitzer Prize.
I think you should admit the mistake of LANGUAGE, and the other two mistakes. How can you say: l've tried to find the Saviour love but nothing? Is this good English? I think it is only to you.
Which has come to me, WHICH here can't be omitted according to good grammar. Nothing that: and you don't write THAT. How can you omit the subjective relative pronoun. Or perhaps you can only do that according to your grammar..
"Look up the word language in a good dictionary, and you find that your word should be countable. The dictionary can correct anyone, even the winner of a Pulitzer Prize."
Your favorite dictionary, Longman, contradicts you:
lan‧guage /ˈlæŋɡwɪdʒ/ ●●● S1 W1 noun
"3 STYLE/TYPE OF WORDS [uncountable] a particular style or type of words
legal/medical/technical etc language
The letter was written in complicated legal language.
spoken/written language
The expression is mainly used in written language.
ordinary/everyday language
He is able to explain complicated ideas in simple everyday language.
literary/poetic language
The plays are full of old-fashioned poetic language."
"I think you should admit the mistake of LANGUAGE, and the other two mistakes. How can you say: l've tried to find the Saviour love but nothing? Is this good English?"
What you SAY I've said is not good English.
But the problem is that you've misread and misquoted me. What I wrote is:
I’ve tried to find the savior’s love.
But nothing from above
has come to me.
And this IS perfectly good English
"Which has come to me, WHICH here can't be omitted according to good grammar."
But I didn't write "which has come to me" nor did I need to since "nothing" is the subject of "has come". Please tell me what came to you when you sought Jesus' love. Nothing. Nothing came to me.
"Nothing that: and you don't write THAT. How can you omit the subjective relative pronoun." [You need a question mark here, not a full stop].
Your favorite dictionary, Longman, contradicts you:
lan‧guage /ˈlæŋɡwɪdʒ/ ●●● S1 W1 noun
"3 STYLE/TYPE OF WORDS [uncountable] a particular style or type of words
legal/medical/technical etc language
The letter was written in complicated legal language.
spoken/written language
The expression is mainly used in written language.
ordinary/everyday language
He is able to explain complicated ideas in simple everyday language.
literary/poetic language
The plays are full of old-fashioned poetic language."
"I think you should admit the mistake of LANGUAGE, and the other two mistakes. How can you say: l've tried to find the Saviour love but nothing? Is this good English?"
What you SAY I've said is not good English.
But the problem is that you've misread and misquoted me. What I wrote is:
I’ve tried to find the savior’s love.
But nothing from above
has come to me.
And this IS perfectly good English
"Which has come to me, WHICH here can't be omitted according to good grammar."
But I didn't write "which has come to me" nor did I need to since "nothing" is the subject of "has come". Please tell me what came to you when you sought Jesus' love. Nothing. Nothing came to me.
"Nothing that: and you don't write THAT. How can you omit the subjective relative pronoun." [You need a question mark here, not a full stop].
This is your style. You are not interested in reality. You want to mislead simple people by writing a lot about things not related to the subject. This is your empty style.
Language: [according to longman and all dictionaries] :1-[U] the system of human expression by means of words.This is too general. 2-[C] a p articular system of words, as used by a people or nation: He is learning two foreign languages. Here is our interest. Please don't write lengthy accounts not related to the subject to deceive people.
Sorry for the idea: but nothing from above has come to me.
Language: [according to longman and all dictionaries] :1-[U] the system of human expression by means of words.This is too general. 2-[C] a p articular system of words, as used by a people or nation: He is learning two foreign languages. Here is our interest. Please don't write lengthy accounts not related to the subject to deceive people.
Sorry for the idea: but nothing from above has come to me.
9th Jun 2020 4:06pm
I'd be grateful if you'd not only explain what you mean by "deceiving people" and what the subject of my alleged deception is but show through accurate quotations of what I've written where and how I've actually done so.
"This is your style. You are not interested in reality."
And you are? And even if you are, does your style capture and express reality in a way that makes readers see it with their eyes shut?
And you are? And even if you are, does your style capture and express reality in a way that makes readers see it with their eyes shut?
9th Jun 2020 4:02pm
Did you mention the word LANGUAGE in your comment? However, don't write much. If you do, l don't read it. Are you from Syria? This is what l think.
I USED the word "language" in my versed response to your submission. YOU are the one who mentioned it in a comment.
And I used it in my verse in the sense that dictionaries note the word has and with which Oliver quite legitimately uses it. I'm sorry that you seem incapable of seeing that the sense of what I wrote was
Apparently I do not give a fig
for choosing wording that is fresh (i.e., full of or renewed in vigor).
BTW, how is " However, don't write much." good English?
And I used it in my verse in the sense that dictionaries note the word has and with which Oliver quite legitimately uses it. I'm sorry that you seem incapable of seeing that the sense of what I wrote was
Apparently I do not give a fig
for choosing wording that is fresh (i.e., full of or renewed in vigor).
BTW, how is " However, don't write much." good English?
However: is a sentence connector, don't write much: is imperative. I know English grammar better than you do, and l am not obliged to tell you who taught me English. Not only, you don't trust me, but l also don't trust you. I asked you to tell me about your nationality, but you refused to do so. I am sure you are Syrian, and a person with whom l am not on good terms.
"However: is a sentence connector, don't write much: is imperative."
Telling me what "however" and "don't write much" are is not the same as showing that the sentence "However, don't write much" is good English, let alone one that is one that is comprehensible. It is ambiguous since it could mean "do not write the word "much". And if you are commanding me to not write verbosely or as loquaciously as I supposedly do, that's not the way to do so.
And where did the question of who taught you English arise? I, certainly, did not ask it.
Moreover, what does my nationality have to do with the validity of what I write? What I write is or is not valid on its own terms. But there you go again in your use of the fallacy known as "poisoning the well".
Telling me what "however" and "don't write much" are is not the same as showing that the sentence "However, don't write much" is good English, let alone one that is one that is comprehensible. It is ambiguous since it could mean "do not write the word "much". And if you are commanding me to not write verbosely or as loquaciously as I supposedly do, that's not the way to do so.
And where did the question of who taught you English arise? I, certainly, did not ask it.
Moreover, what does my nationality have to do with the validity of what I write? What I write is or is not valid on its own terms. But there you go again in your use of the fallacy known as "poisoning the well".
I didn't know that you were a genius in such a stunning way. No wonder, nobody cares for your poetry.
Do we say TO NOT WRITE, or not to write. This is A SPLIT INFINITIVE.
Aren't you Syrian. Believe me l know you. However, you don't have the slightest effect on me. Still you are talking about poison.
Do we say TO NOT WRITE, or not to write. This is A SPLIT INFINITIVE.
Aren't you Syrian. Believe me l know you. However, you don't have the slightest effect on me. Still you are talking about poison.
We can say either.
On this, see
https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/split-infinitives/
and
https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2017/sep/25/to-boldly-go-split-infinitive-grammatical-error-research
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4q8RXkquJQ
And what I'm talking about is your continued and unapologetic use of a smear tactic.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Poisoning-the-Well
On this, see
https://getitwriteonline.com/articles/split-infinitives/
and
https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2017/sep/25/to-boldly-go-split-infinitive-grammatical-error-research
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4q8RXkquJQ
And what I'm talking about is your continued and unapologetic use of a smear tactic.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Poisoning-the-Well
9th Jun 2020 9:38pm
Of course, you don't admit. Ask any person who knows English about the split infinitive, and he tells you. Nowadays, a lot of ignorant people use the split infinitive pretending that it is taken from Latin, but not used in English, not knowing that more than half the English language is derived from Latin. In this case, we must use the rule of the split infinitive.
What is your evidence that more than half of the English language is derived from Latin, especially since it is primarily a development of German? See this:
http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/MED-Magazine/May2006/38-UK-US-Culture.htm
and Bill Bryson's _The Mother Tongue - English And How It Got That Way_
And your claim about what anyone who knows English knows that the split infinitive is wrong and that his/her prohibitions against it are not grounded in observations based on Latin grammar is belied by the fact that the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary and the Oxford Grammar of English and Fowler dispute its validity.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001/acref-9780199661350-e-5585
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001/acref-9780199661350-e-5585
http://www.macmillandictionaries.com/MED-Magazine/May2006/38-UK-US-Culture.htm
and Bill Bryson's _The Mother Tongue - English And How It Got That Way_
And your claim about what anyone who knows English knows that the split infinitive is wrong and that his/her prohibitions against it are not grounded in observations based on Latin grammar is belied by the fact that the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary and the Oxford Grammar of English and Fowler dispute its validity.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001/acref-9780199661350-e-5585
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001/acref-9780199661350-e-5585
10th Jun 2020 9:57pm
How would I seek
the love of Jesus Christ
if this was something I desired to have?
Luke and Matthew say “by being meek”
and willing when I’m slapped
upon my face
to turn my cheek
and bear the suffering,
the cross,
that following
the Nazarene and his commands
for how one is to manifest,
make plain,
one’s faithfulness to God
is sure to bring upon my head.
I note I cannot find
in Scripture where it’s said
that if I make endeavors to do this,
then heaven’s space will come
and fit inside my house.
Perhaps the person who
declared that this so pious platitude
is truly Scripture-based
and a divine prediction true
will show just where within
the Second Testament
this platitude is textually announced.
However, I have doubts
that this is something that I’ll see
from him.
He’ll find a way (and probably
by using silence or red herrings and
ad hominems)
to speciously prescind the task
because he knows that it’s a thing
he cannot do.
the love of Jesus Christ
if this was something I desired to have?
Luke and Matthew say “by being meek”
and willing when I’m slapped
upon my face
to turn my cheek
and bear the suffering,
the cross,
that following
the Nazarene and his commands
for how one is to manifest,
make plain,
one’s faithfulness to God
is sure to bring upon my head.
I note I cannot find
in Scripture where it’s said
that if I make endeavors to do this,
then heaven’s space will come
and fit inside my house.
Perhaps the person who
declared that this so pious platitude
is truly Scripture-based
and a divine prediction true
will show just where within
the Second Testament
this platitude is textually announced.
However, I have doubts
that this is something that I’ll see
from him.
He’ll find a way (and probably
by using silence or red herrings and
ad hominems)
to speciously prescind the task
because he knows that it’s a thing
he cannot do.
30th May 2022 10:16pm
Lately, Jesus Christ has been my stronghold and the only source of inner strength for me, an unconditional source of love and intimacy that soothes me and caresses me beyond a means to express it.
31st May 2022 12:29pm
Very dear Boyana,
I have trust only in Jesus Christ and in His mother, Saint Mary. The earth doesn't give real happiness to me as death is the end of everything. Only God remains, and l believe in Christ, who has defeated death. Thank you for your like, and for choosing my poem for your reading list. I would like to cooperate with you in any way possible.
I have trust only in Jesus Christ and in His mother, Saint Mary. The earth doesn't give real happiness to me as death is the end of everything. Only God remains, and l believe in Christ, who has defeated death. Thank you for your like, and for choosing my poem for your reading list. I would like to cooperate with you in any way possible.
