leonardcohenforum.com

Poetry can be beautiful. Human beings have the potential to experience language as aesthetic joy; and language can – in rare instances – transmit a deep quality of experience from the writer to the reader. This last may be attacked by various schools of literary theory, and that’s fine. If it ain’t true for you, it ain’t true.

Sharing poetry should be an occasion for joy. A celebration of our very humanity in the medium of language. A sacred rite.
Too New Age for you? OK – I’ll recant everything I ever said. You see, words can trap you, if you take them too seriously. They’re just words! It’s just thoughts. My thoughts, your thoughts – it doesn’t matter. Reality is infinitely greater than what language has to say about it.

Reality IS. It’s not for or against. Still, the Philosopher will never befriend the Zen Master, because ”nothing upsets the parson so much as the presence of a saint in his parish.” Truth is not a system of thought, just as theology does not equate God. The free soul couldn’t care less if she contradicts herself. And she doesn’t necessarily hold to the modes of expression most revered by a particular culture or sub-culture. ”How poetry should be written” fails to impress.

When language is used to express spiritual experience, it can operate both within and outside of the boundaries established by tradition and dogma – the authorised ways of speaking about Ultimate Reality. Those who recognize the unbound nature of that reality typically do not limit themselves to the official language. Consequently they may prefer poetry to theology.

Now, since language is dualistic and limiting in its nature, giving expression to such experience requires that one must try to break free of language. This, of course, is ultimately impossible. Consequently, some mystics claim that silence is the only true utterance. But as Katagiri Roshi said: ”You have to say something.” So mystics typically adopt one of two strategies: the apophatic or the cataphatic. Apophaticism is the via negativa, the route by which you you let language turn on itself, through paradox and negations. This is done to try to bring the reader to the realization that ”God” transcends the mind/logic/language – that the reality of which they speak is ”wholly other.”

Those focusing on the feeling-qualities of spirituality, on the other hand, will likely use cataphatic language. This is language that is overflowing, abundant, rich in metaphor, attempting to pour the sacred out onto the page.
To people with no experience of the mystics’ truth, their writings will often seem like sentimental drivel, utterly devoid of any coherence or rationality. The irony is that the lesser here condemns the greater. Knowing only the world of thought, rationality passes judgment on trans-rationality, thinking that it is pre-rational.

That’s why the critic will never befriend the sage.
But then again, sometimes it happens.

However, I will get involved enough to endorse what you've written here, Taigaku .

nicely and sincerely written, Taigaku.

There is certainly purpose in writing in clichee or forced rhyme, it can be entry into the comfort club where others of similarly limited talent will greet and applaud you. But the expression of humanity is not that convincing when it comes in "dot-by-dot" form.

I presume we are all fans of Leonard Cohen. His song lyrics are the most wonderful expression of humanity and spirituality, yet he manages originality of thought.

Of course, we can not match his standard. But are the posters here really trying? I dislike lazy, mechanical rhyming fits.

Anyone has a right to post whatever poetry they want here. I have a similar right to comment.

Taigaku ~

>@<

Hi Critic2 ~

I won't reread to be absolutely certain; however, [at this point] it seems that the objection isn't regarding your commenting, in itself, but rather the manner in which you've chosen to do it. Constructive criticism will be, for the most part, always welcome. Then, you really are staying focused on the writing itself, absent demeaning adjectives ~ which will always bleed over into the realm of 'personal attack.' It's the slam-dunking that creates resistance and resentment ~ and rightfully so.

~ Lizzy

Lizzytish, of course you are right but there is an absurd oversensitivity to criticism here. This is the most gentle of forums- my comments are very mild compared to regular deconstruction of poetry elsewhere.

I have seen writers improve massively when they mature enough to take in the calling of cliché and forced rhyme for example. Easy ABAB rhythm pervades this place like a giant broken box of Hallmark Greetings Cards.

Anyone has a perfect right to post whatever poetry they like here, however unaccomplished. I have a perfect right to criticise it. I will make few friends with that approach but it's only the ones who are mature enough to take criticism who have a chance of improvement.

That is The True (©Makeera)

Easy ABAB rhythm pervades this place like a giant broken box of Hallmark Greetings Cards

Surely that is still preferable to the endless inane freeform of a certain nameless departed wannabe?

p.

who dat man? I don't immediately know who you mean?

At least that person is not a wannabe lawyer, Mr Partisan, defender of his own ego.

Avalon, you big tease, who *is* that man to whom Partisan refers?

We could not possibly know or reveal that man as he has walked here before, unguarded. Partisan however, ridicules under numerous guises. Perhaps he is practising going to the bar. I personally hopes he crosses the bar..........

Partisan however, ridicules under numerous guises

Only one other guise as it happens, and that is no secret.

Perhaps he is practising going to the bar.

Not as much as i would like as it happens.
Make mine a large anyhow.

p.

You can't buy a large EGO at the bar, Partisan. You have yours by birthright and a complicated mixture of genetics, shaken and not stirred. Although you are a shitstirrer.

did you look at that egoless poetry site, Makera?