deepundergroundpoetry.com
Some aspects of religion
So I feel like a hypocrite.
Truly catholic by birth and baptism
But non-practicing.
I don't want to believe in One God
Male or Female who would, alone,
Have created the mess we are in.
And yet, like a poker player, I want to keep
An ace up my sleeve.
I observe from afar all the big events
Go to church on occasion
In order to speak (in a nasty way)
My mind to the Big Guy
Or to the Her, in a more respecful manner
I empty my bag of recriminations.
But you gotta keep a safety net.
You just never know what's on the other side
So I keep Pascal's wager in mind.
Though I believe in nothingness
Once around this hell hole will be enough.
And whatever our religion,
We are drilled from Day One
That there is something bigger than us
Out there.
We grow up,
Some continue to believe
Some take advantage of the weak
(Televangelists etc)
Other feed the poor and cram their brains
With empty words learned by rote,
(Like in Madrassas)
But so do different prison-like sects
Which enslave forever
Until and unless one finds a way to freedom.
Religion can be a poison to many
But to many it is also
A necessary evil.
Truly catholic by birth and baptism
But non-practicing.
I don't want to believe in One God
Male or Female who would, alone,
Have created the mess we are in.
And yet, like a poker player, I want to keep
An ace up my sleeve.
I observe from afar all the big events
Go to church on occasion
In order to speak (in a nasty way)
My mind to the Big Guy
Or to the Her, in a more respecful manner
I empty my bag of recriminations.
But you gotta keep a safety net.
You just never know what's on the other side
So I keep Pascal's wager in mind.
Though I believe in nothingness
Once around this hell hole will be enough.
And whatever our religion,
We are drilled from Day One
That there is something bigger than us
Out there.
We grow up,
Some continue to believe
Some take advantage of the weak
(Televangelists etc)
Other feed the poor and cram their brains
With empty words learned by rote,
(Like in Madrassas)
But so do different prison-like sects
Which enslave forever
Until and unless one finds a way to freedom.
Religion can be a poison to many
But to many it is also
A necessary evil.
Published 20th Dec 2021
| Edited 21st Dec 2021
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 2
reading list entries 0
comments 24
reads 348
Commenting Preference:
The author is looking for friendly feedback.
Anonymous
- Edited 20th Dec 2021 3:17am
20th Dec 2021 3:16am
Spiritual sustenance is a deep and abiding need within the humanity. But at the end of the day it's what you make it. If what's there doesn't work for you, best you just make one more workable for your own out of all the bits and pieces available. And there are plenty.
To imagine, though, that what we seek (and often find) spiritually could ever be equated to hard and fast reality (i.e., spiritual truth as absolute and material) is a canard and a red herring.
In the beginning and the end all spiritual truth is poetry.
And we know all about that, here.
To imagine, though, that what we seek (and often find) spiritually could ever be equated to hard and fast reality (i.e., spiritual truth as absolute and material) is a canard and a red herring.
In the beginning and the end all spiritual truth is poetry.
And we know all about that, here.
20th Dec 2021 3:26am
Quite. Sometimes it is best to follow your own ''inner'' guidance. Love poetry. Regards, Robert.
21st Dec 2021 2:20pm
"a hypocrite" not "an hypocrit".
And what does your formatting add to the submission?
And what does your formatting add to the submission?
21st Dec 2021 3:17pm
21st Dec 2021 3:32pm
Whether my remark was or was not "deep" has no bearing on the fact that what I wrote is a legitimate comment on the fact that you didn't proofread what you wrote or didn't cared enough to ensure that you wrote well. So are you saying that your not writing correctly and using a gimmick to make your submission look fancy are minor issues?
Poetry is language. If you don't use it well, you won't produce anything worth reading.
Poetry is language. If you don't use it well, you won't produce anything worth reading.
Perhaps i was proof-reading in French.........and that is where you failed the exam? You sound like a real pompous number. And PS; you are STILL talking hogwash instead of giving an educated point of view on the poem. And PPS: I see that you like to argue ad infinitum and it seems you like to put other poets down. Hey: You are not Edmund Spencer......by a long shot (so I deduce from some of the works that I just read). So I will no longer seek comments from you. Sorry I intruded in your exchange(s) with another poet.
21st Dec 2021 9:08pm
I note that nothing in this ad hominem filled post specifically addresses the points I made about your piece, let alone demonstrates through rational argument and the producing of evidence that what I said was wrong and/or unwarranted. And how I sound has nothing to do with how sound (or not) my remarks are. But your using the fallacy known as "poisoning the well" as well as playing the "tone police" card as grounds for nor speaking to my comments shows you to be one who cannot abide being shown that you are not the master of poetry that you want to believe you are.
And where did I say that I thought I was the Renaissance poet Edmund Spencer?
And where did I say that I thought I was the Renaissance poet Edmund Spencer?
21st Dec 2021 9:13pm
I did not say you were Spencer....I suggest that your ''talent'' does not reach his ankle.
21st Dec 2021 9:23pm
" I did not say you were Spencer....I suggest that your ''talent'' does not reach his ankle."
And yours does?
And yours does?
21st Dec 2021 9:47pm
OK. But please name the submissions of mine that are the grounds for your "deduction" that I am not on any reckoning ("by a long shot") Edmund Spenser.
"(You are not Edmund Spencer......by a long shot (so I deduce from some of the works that I just read)"
"(You are not Edmund Spencer......by a long shot (so I deduce from some of the works that I just read)"
I'd be grateful if you'd tell me how and why you think that the particular way you have set out your piece works to raise interest in what you are on about in your submission.
How would you refute the claim made by one of the moderators of the critical, non vanity poetry site, the Poetry Free For All, that
"Centering work is another raw beginner's gimmick that's intended to make bad writing look as if it were actually poetry; instead, except in the hands of an accomplished and experienced writer, centering is a dead giveaway that the writer is someone who hasn't a clue about what he/she is actually doing."
http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/showthread.php?90181-A-Reply&p=695501#post695501
How would you refute the claim made by one of the moderators of the critical, non vanity poetry site, the Poetry Free For All, that
"Centering work is another raw beginner's gimmick that's intended to make bad writing look as if it were actually poetry; instead, except in the hands of an accomplished and experienced writer, centering is a dead giveaway that the writer is someone who hasn't a clue about what he/she is actually doing."
http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/showthread.php?90181-A-Reply&p=695501#post695501
21st Dec 2021 9:29pm
Amazing. So right off the bat you suggest somewhat pompously that you are an accomplished and experience writer. Next step: Poet Laureate? Nobel Prize in Literature? Please. So I write a poem. You like or you do not. You can go by, disregard, be on your way. NOBODY obliges you to express an opiniobn on whatever I write. But if you do, I would expect it to be concise and meaningful.
"Amazing. So right off the bat you suggest somewhat pompously that you are an accomplished and experience writer."
Please show me where i suggested this, let alone pompously. All I did "right off the bat" was to note that your line was not well written -- a note that you obviously thought was warranted and correct since I see that you made the change I suggested you make -- and that your centering your text did nothing to interest a reader in what you had to say -- which, as I showed, is hardly a view that is peculiar to me or that suggests anything about what I think of myself as a writer.
To wit:
" "a hypocrite" not "an hypocrit".
And what does your formatting add to the submission?"
So thanks for misrepresenting me and putting words in my mouth.
I note, too, that you've begged the question -- as well as misrepresenting me again -- when you say that my messages are not concise or meaningful. Declaration is not demonstration.
In any case, one does not have to be an accomplished writer to be able to spot writing mistakes. Pauleen Kael was regarded as a well respected and authoritative film critic. But she never made a movie in all her life.
P.S. please name the submissions of mine in which you see me trying to write like Edmund Spenser.
Please show me where i suggested this, let alone pompously. All I did "right off the bat" was to note that your line was not well written -- a note that you obviously thought was warranted and correct since I see that you made the change I suggested you make -- and that your centering your text did nothing to interest a reader in what you had to say -- which, as I showed, is hardly a view that is peculiar to me or that suggests anything about what I think of myself as a writer.
To wit:
" "a hypocrite" not "an hypocrit".
And what does your formatting add to the submission?"
So thanks for misrepresenting me and putting words in my mouth.
I note, too, that you've begged the question -- as well as misrepresenting me again -- when you say that my messages are not concise or meaningful. Declaration is not demonstration.
In any case, one does not have to be an accomplished writer to be able to spot writing mistakes. Pauleen Kael was regarded as a well respected and authoritative film critic. But she never made a movie in all her life.
P.S. please name the submissions of mine in which you see me trying to write like Edmund Spenser.
21st Dec 2021 9:51pm
Bluntly, I simply suggest that, unlike Spencer (or any of the great ones) , you are of very limited talent. And so am I.
"Bluntly, I simply suggest that, unlike Spencer (or any of the great ones) , you are of very limited talent"
Please tell me which of my submissions you have read in which your conclusion about my lack of "talent" is grounded.
And please be specific about what literary and linguistic features these submissions of mine do not have that Spencer's poetry does.
I remind you that without evidence and documentation demonstrating that your claim is valid, it has no weight and is nothing that anyone should take seriously or would make them thing that you know much about the literary and linguistic features that a writing has to have to be poetry worth reading
I also have to ask if you are cut from the same cloth as J-Z is in that you, like him, think that you are incapable of writing poorly and feel that the only reason that someone might find faults in the way you write is that they are unschooled in what makes a poem a good one and lack poetic imagination.
Please tell me which of my submissions you have read in which your conclusion about my lack of "talent" is grounded.
And please be specific about what literary and linguistic features these submissions of mine do not have that Spencer's poetry does.
I remind you that without evidence and documentation demonstrating that your claim is valid, it has no weight and is nothing that anyone should take seriously or would make them thing that you know much about the literary and linguistic features that a writing has to have to be poetry worth reading
I also have to ask if you are cut from the same cloth as J-Z is in that you, like him, think that you are incapable of writing poorly and feel that the only reason that someone might find faults in the way you write is that they are unschooled in what makes a poem a good one and lack poetic imagination.
Amazing blah blah blah. Do yourself a favor and DO read the Fairie Queene if you have not read it yet. You ''might'' notice genius quality in that work. PS; I am sorry. I have neither heart, the soul or the patience of a teacher. I mentionned Spencer. I could have mentionned the superb works of such giants as Molière. (Love le Tartuffe). Ever tried to write in the Alexandrin(e) form?
just as when you look at a painting, or observe such great works such as Michelangelo's la Pieta. Carved in MARBLE. imagine the skill that that takes?
just as when you look at a painting, or observe such great works such as Michelangelo's la Pieta. Carved in MARBLE. imagine the skill that that takes?
This message follows unmistakably in the footsteps of J-Z in that it too engages in the tactic of characterizing my message to you rather than speaking as it should directly to what I say within it and is a complete dodge of the questions I asked you there -- which is always a sure sign that you are unable to produce a whit of evidence that supports your claims. Otherwise you would have done so especially since it would have been easy for you to do if you had any.
And no one asked you to be a teacher. Nor did anyone say that the issue at hand was Spenser's genius. The issue at hand is the validity of your claims. You were asked to act responsibly and tell me not only which of my submissions led you to the conclusion that I lacked poetic talent, but to be specific about how and why (and where in) my submissions lacked the literary and linguistic characteristics that a writing should/must have to be considered poetry worth reading.
And in light of this, it seems fair to ask which of these characteristics YOUR submissions do or do not possess. What makes you think that your submissions are poetry, let alone poetry worth reading. I take it that you do not think they ARE worth reading since you have admitted in a previous message that you have very little poetic talent.
It's also fair to ask, since you've implied that I have no poetic ability if I have never composed something in the Alexandrine form (which BTW, I have, especially if what you mean by "the Alexandrine form" is a piece that has lines set out in iambic hexameter), not only if YOU have written in that form, but whether you were successful in your attempt to do so.
And please note that if you ask me to prove that I've written in this, form, you'll have no reason to complain if I do not comply with, let alone ignore, your request, since you've set the example for how such requests should be dealt with.
And no one asked you to be a teacher. Nor did anyone say that the issue at hand was Spenser's genius. The issue at hand is the validity of your claims. You were asked to act responsibly and tell me not only which of my submissions led you to the conclusion that I lacked poetic talent, but to be specific about how and why (and where in) my submissions lacked the literary and linguistic characteristics that a writing should/must have to be considered poetry worth reading.
And in light of this, it seems fair to ask which of these characteristics YOUR submissions do or do not possess. What makes you think that your submissions are poetry, let alone poetry worth reading. I take it that you do not think they ARE worth reading since you have admitted in a previous message that you have very little poetic talent.
It's also fair to ask, since you've implied that I have no poetic ability if I have never composed something in the Alexandrine form (which BTW, I have, especially if what you mean by "the Alexandrine form" is a piece that has lines set out in iambic hexameter), not only if YOU have written in that form, but whether you were successful in your attempt to do so.
And please note that if you ask me to prove that I've written in this, form, you'll have no reason to complain if I do not comply with, let alone ignore, your request, since you've set the example for how such requests should be dealt with.
You have sooooooo much time arguing about nothing. You have the talent that you have. Period. Again. You do not have to read my stuff. Just skip it. Go read something else. Go away. I really don't want to hear anymore of your gibberish.
In other words, and leaving aside the fact that without a demonstration of the validity of your assertion that my messages are gibberish the assertion is question begging, this message of yours is an implicit admission that you are wholly unable to back up any of your claims.
In any case, and assuming the validity of your notion that the determiner of whether someone has poetic talent is whether or not he or she can write in "the Alexandrine form" (did you mean in iambic hexameter?), I ask again the yes or no (and hardly gibberished but quite concise and wholly comprehensible) questions of
1. Whether you have written anything in "the Alexandrine form", and
2. If you have, did you do so successfully?
Surely, you can answer these questions.
In any case, and assuming the validity of your notion that the determiner of whether someone has poetic talent is whether or not he or she can write in "the Alexandrine form" (did you mean in iambic hexameter?), I ask again the yes or no (and hardly gibberished but quite concise and wholly comprehensible) questions of
1. Whether you have written anything in "the Alexandrine form", and
2. If you have, did you do so successfully?
Surely, you can answer these questions.
On more note on this posted in the hope that you will nor dodge but will provide an actual and relevant and on point answer to what I ask you:
When you say, as you did":
"Do yourself a favor and DO read the Fairie Queene if you have not read it yet. You ''might'' notice genius quality in that work. "
Whether you know it or not, your claim that you know what it is that in terms of the language, meter, imagery, figures of speech, diction, and other literary devices that Spenser employed that makes the poem a work of "genius" and, conversely, what it is when a writing doesn't measure up to the genius of such a work that it lacks.
So unless you are blowing smoke and are speaking of things you really don't know much about or are unable to articulate, one must conclude from your apodictic statement that after reading certain submissions of mine you have good reason to conclude (not deduce) that the quality of my work and the poetic talent displayed within them does not even come up to Spencer's ankles, that you know what poetic literary and linguistic features those submissions (which you have yet to name) lack.
So I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is and note exactly what's not there in the way they are set out in comparison to what poetic features can be found in the Faire Queen. Will you do this? Will you show that you really know what you are talking about?
When you say, as you did":
"Do yourself a favor and DO read the Fairie Queene if you have not read it yet. You ''might'' notice genius quality in that work. "
Whether you know it or not, your claim that you know what it is that in terms of the language, meter, imagery, figures of speech, diction, and other literary devices that Spenser employed that makes the poem a work of "genius" and, conversely, what it is when a writing doesn't measure up to the genius of such a work that it lacks.
So unless you are blowing smoke and are speaking of things you really don't know much about or are unable to articulate, one must conclude from your apodictic statement that after reading certain submissions of mine you have good reason to conclude (not deduce) that the quality of my work and the poetic talent displayed within them does not even come up to Spencer's ankles, that you know what poetic literary and linguistic features those submissions (which you have yet to name) lack.
So I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is and note exactly what's not there in the way they are set out in comparison to what poetic features can be found in the Faire Queen. Will you do this? Will you show that you really know what you are talking about?
30th Dec 2021 8:14pm
To piggy back on something Em-ily said, some folks look for that spiritual nourishment and some completely delve into it without regard for knowledge or science (take the example of some who even in today's time refuse to listen to doctors).
History has shown us how many "holy" wars have been fought, countless lives sacrificed and lands taken in the name of "god". Even today, that Westborough Baptist church is a perfect example of the extreme danger they are when they preach hatred and anger at anything different from them. The film maker Kevin Smith based his movie "Red State" on this cult, showing how insane this can look on the inside.
Other than that, I do believe that religion should be about community, acceptance, peace and overall and improvement on human kindness, connecting ourselves with a higher being (whether it's called, God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.). Enlightenment is an ardous path to travel, but some roads lead nowhere.
Thought provoking write.
History has shown us how many "holy" wars have been fought, countless lives sacrificed and lands taken in the name of "god". Even today, that Westborough Baptist church is a perfect example of the extreme danger they are when they preach hatred and anger at anything different from them. The film maker Kevin Smith based his movie "Red State" on this cult, showing how insane this can look on the inside.
Other than that, I do believe that religion should be about community, acceptance, peace and overall and improvement on human kindness, connecting ourselves with a higher being (whether it's called, God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.). Enlightenment is an ardous path to travel, but some roads lead nowhere.
Thought provoking write.
30th Dec 2021 8:41pm
Provoking indeed, as religion allways is. As you said, Enlightenment is a key word. Regards, Robert.
