Neo-Nihilism, Conception of Reality in a Quantum Universe.
They throw down words upon me.
To blind with concept and metaphor.
Extension.
This world be art.
No copyright, no owner.
Might as well, be mine own.
Burn this place.
Dissipate the ashes, leave only the framework.
I Theo.
The haunt of murders will black the sky.
Heaven consumed.
Tears of angels, bloody the waters.
The screams pierce through to a deafening roar.
One sound, one color.
The skies are the last to be fed to the flames.
They witness our death as they watch the world reborn into it’s perfect form.
Nothing.
Now don’t speak.
Don’t make claims against me.
I don’t make claim against reality.
It’s all extension from forms,
And from nothingness to forms.
I don’t make claim against believing in God,
Just that like all else, he is better understood as framework.
Which is better understood as nothingness.
Consumed to nothing. Reality without interference.
|
WHAT A HOOT!!
Written by gerardconnolly (1186 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
Fantastic!! Hilarious!! Its Open Day at the Funny Farm and the freaks are out and about. Priceless! Utterly priceless! I haven't laughed so much at GW since Givitsum departed. But surely this should be on Comedy?
Well done! An absolute side splitter.
Slan and my compliments to you. You make Coco the clown sound like Sartre.
PS. I know. Go on admit it! You're MangotheChutneyMan in disguise. |
Written by MariusBinx (17 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
Is that like some highly jerk way of saying you hated it?
huh.
Minus some mistakes with commas that I didn't bother fixing before posting...
Um, yeah...thanks? |
Written by Phil (6719 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
The title is quite a draw, Marius. Beyond that - I didn't get much out of this. Too much of the abstract and unconnected ideas. I'm sure they linked for you - but that doesn't come across for me.
Interesting comment - 'that I didn't bother fixing before posting...'
Why not?
Phil |
Written by fellpony (1608 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
As a woman whose art is scientific and whose science is artistic, neither the title nor the content made much sense to me. I don't envy you trying to make something poetic out of neo-nihilism. Nothing comes of nothing, even entropy assumes that energy is there but lost.
is that ... quantum as quantum in me fuit, "I did the best I could?" |
Written by MariusBinx (17 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
To fellpony - Quantum, quantum mechanics as in the deep study of physics. Quark theory, etc etc.
To Phil - I didn't bother fixing the commas mostly because I was lazy. I was tired when I got the email saying my account was active, and I somehow justified in my head that it's better to post the initial piece than it is to edit it. |
Written by Fledermaus (3281 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
I'm not a physicist, but personally I do think that trying to explain religion in terms of physics or physics in terms of religion is trying to combine two incompatible worlds.
Although ironically they sometimes seem to be a lot alike, for those who are neither priests nor physicists often take their words for granted because they are considered to be the experts. And don't the followers of relativity theory and quantum physics bite each other just as hard as those of some religions do?
Religion is about belief and beliefs don't have to be proven.
Science is about knowledge and even though it's obvious (and provable) that absolute knowledge cannot be achieved, it should seek to prove all its claims.
I must say I expected a lot from the title, but I'm afraid I'm a bit disappointed by the way you filled it in. The ideas are nice, but it seems to be a bit chaotic... |
Written by stevetroster (1549 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
Dear Marius.
The Jeremy in me likes a lot of the ideas/content, yet not the craft
This works for me, although it’s not poetry (at least I don’t think it is!)
They throw their words down upon me; blinding me with concepts and metaphors.
Extension: The world is a piece of artwork (yet with no copyright and no owner, so it might as well be mine).
Burn this place, dissipate the ashes and leave only the framework.
Murder will haunt the blackened sky, heaven will be consumed and the tears of angels will bloody the water. Screams pierce through, a deafening roar (one sound, one color) as the skies are the last to be fed to the flames.
They witness our death and they watch the world reborn into its perfect form - nothing.
Dear Maus: “Religion is about belief and beliefs don't have to be proven.” Really?
‘Faith’ is about belief, whilst religion is about control of the masses. Baaaaaaa.
Oh, and Marius. You have to excuse GC as, like God and U2, “She moves in mysterious ways”.
|
Written by MariusBinx (17 comments posted) 17th February 2008 |
Not poetry?
Anything can be poetry, I hate the conceptions of form and structure. But that's just my opinion. This was also written more for lyrics, for sound, than caring about formalities like black vs. blackened. |
Written by stevetroster (1549 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
Hi Marius.
It wasn’t my intention to rewrite or structure your piece in line with my (or anyone else’s ideals), I was just saying that that was how I had read and interpreted it.
All the best,
Steve.
"The word is a piece of artwork - yet with no copyright and no owner. So it might as well be ours, to use and abuse!"
|
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3352 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
"Anything can be poetry"
Oh dear you're one of those people are you? "I'm a poet therefore everything I write must be poetry"
"I hate the conceptions of form and structure."
Because you can't be bothered to learn them, I supppose
You can't get away with that rubbish in any other writing form;Stories, novels, film scripts, plays have to have form structure and coherent writing but not poetry according to you. It's an insult to the true poets on this site [and elsewhere] Most writers have to learn and hone their craft but poets can throw up any old mish-mash and call it poetry?
There is a vital adjective missing from your statement
Anything can be "bad"poetry. Good poetry takes craft as well as art.
You'll grow out of it,hopefully |
Written by MariusBinx (17 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
To Bottle:
No, but thank you for throwing all that bullshit down my throat.
I have taken a few writing courses in poetry and advanced poetry in my college. While I DO know and AM willing and wanting to learn the forms, better than I already do, I dislike people obsessed with them. Their works usually come out as dry and uninspired, compared to those who first write will less structure and then edit to add slightly more structure.
Anything can be poetry, it takes true craft and skill to break tradition.
I can respect both sides, I don't see why that is so hard for some. I have nothing against them. |
Written by Phil (6719 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
I may have my wooden spoon out, but please: 'Anything can be poetry, it takes true craft and skill to break tradition.'
Here's one I wrote earlier:
Fancy a cup of tea, Fred?
No thanks, coffee for me.
True craft and skill? My foot.
Phil
|
Written by MariusBinx (17 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
| Opinion means nothing, right? |
Written by Veronica_Milvus (630 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
I agree with many of these posts. If nobody can fathom out what this is about, then it has failed to communicate, and the ability to communicate something - an idea, a feeling, whatever - is part of my definition of poetry. Otherwise, why bother?
We would all do well to read some poetry and ask ourselves how the poet gets something over. Total lack of structure is usually not the way it works. |
Written by MariusBinx (17 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
| Now that comment I agree with. If the problem lies inability to get a point across there is a problem, I take that as a fair crit. of what I wrote, however I just don't see why structure has anything to do with that. I could go back and add structure to this, but if my word use doesn't get the ideas across here it wont then either. |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3352 comments posted) 18th February 2008 |
My coments were not aimed at your poem but your assertion that anything can be poetry. I didn't understand the poem so didn't feel qualified to comment. I do think you are being too literal about structure; just think of it as presentation. You have to present work in such a way that it can be read and understood unless you just want to confound rather than communicate.
You cannot get a away from the fact that
"The meaning of every written communication is the response you get" That,surely is arguable. |
Written by NathanRoberts (277 comments posted) 19th February 2008 |
I agree with one of the other comments that the title is promising but the work is a little confusing/obscure. Maybe it's the nature of the site but I'm not inclined to spend too long trying to decipher something unless it hits me fairly rapidly. Yeh, shallow innit? I quite like the last half dozen lines...there's an intriguing petulance about it
Don’t make claims against me.
I don’t make claim against reality.
It’s all extension from forms,
And from nothingness to forms.
(Neo-Nihilism or Neo Platonism?)
I don’t make claim against believing in God,
Just that like all else, he is better understood as framework.
Which is better understood as nothingness.
Consumed to nothing. Reality without interference. |
Written by NathanRoberts (277 comments posted) 19th February 2008 |
Just read the comments about 'anything can be poetry'. All meaning is context dependent so.........post something/ anything on a poetry site and it's poetry (discuss!). It's the same philosophical stance as John Cage's 3 mins of silence.....anything is music if you stage it right (discuss).
As for "The meaning of every written communication is the response you get" (Bottleblondsurfer)...that's a tricky one...it's kinda like the conundrum 'If a tree falls in a forest and noone is around to hear it...did it make a sound?'. Is the response of the author enough? Or, what if it's a great piece of writing but it's only read/reviewed by a bunch of numbskulls?
Gosh, I love armchair amateur philosophy don't you?  |
Written by MariusBinx (17 comments posted) 19th February 2008 |
Ah Nathan!
Neo-Nihilism or Neo-Platonism?
Good question.
I say a combination.
I wished to explore a form of extreme platonism, delving into the realm of the non-empirical (and untestable! [but it's not like Plato never did the same!]) and in there I found, what I wanted to find of course, a neo-nihilism! |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register.
Previous item
