royal attributes

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2021 11:00AM by easyeverett.

Tom:

Powerful! Your command of the language - its rhythms and nuances - is superb and adds layers of depth and understanding to a wretched condition that few are willing to explore. Well done.

Joe

A bold manifesto, Tom. Some powerful words used in striking metaphors and phrases. Well done.

Your title is allowable poetic licence, as you are obviously not talking about all forms of insanity - some of which are dreadful, but about the conjoined cornucopia and curse of your own condition. I have not seen that expressed better.

I think "luster" should be spelled "lustre"; and in your Notes, the first syllable of sacerdotal is pronounced SAK, not SASS. (You must have skipped Latin at school). That doesn't spoil that word's use in your poem.

Ian

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 08:11AM by IanAKB.

[sas-er-doht-l] I have the pronunciation on three separate speakers
Ian and every one of my dictionaries and speakers pronounce the 'sac'
as 'sas'and though Latin was not required in my secular education (it should
have been required however) I use it and read it every day because
of my medical work along with the occasional nod to Greek. lol. I love
languages and always double check a word that I have used but sparingly
when it falls into the obscure realm which I think sacerdotal qualifies.
Anyway, a favorite poet of mine Mina Loy,loved that word and I try to
commune with her ghost by using it once every rare day in a poem. So
far she has been very still. Thanks for the fine compliment on this
poetic Ian. I am honored. tom

Tom, I find that we are both right, but you are probably more right than I am!

The Oxford Dictionary and the Macquarie [Australian] Dictionary give the pronunciation "sas" first, but then give "sak" as an alternative. And presumably to allow for those Aussie sacerdotes who have overindulged in communion wine or local amber fluid, the Macquarie also allows 'satsh' as an alternative.

Ian

Guy sez, "Howya pronounce the name of these islands, is it Hah why ee? or Hah vie hee?" Native sez, "Hah vie hee" Guy sez, "Thank you" Native sez, "You're velcome"


I've never been to the Sassremento mountains.

Hey Ian, LOL and a big guffaw. I don't think I'll use the word again especially now that I have been made aware of the Aussie sacerdote drinking indulgences. Maybe because they can't sell the other indulgences to the landed nobility anymore. Used to be a pretty fair income flow. Give me a dime for eternal Prime Time. Hey, that might catch on.

Hey Merc, are you makin' fun of the way I talk. I used to live in the Sassremento hills, couldn't afford a mountain, and now I see why I was laughed out of my hilly
village. Wish I had known back then vat I know rright now.

tom

Translate that to english if you feel like impressing me.

Hi Mr. P I put notes and definitions at the bottom of the page.
I thought I covered all the tuffies but I might have missed something.
But it is insane or at least a very bad day so I apologize for the whole
thing but I would never try to impress with insanity. Trust me on that
one Mr P. Thank you for the time and comment. tom

Relllaxxxxxxx man. Let me put a filter on that last comment, clear things up.



Ahem The subject matter is of such depth and importance that poetic form simply does not do it justice. It is as napkin scrawls portraying the Eiffel tower. So, do explain things without vagueries(Someone tell me if that's a word) in standard conversational format, English, and you may spark my interest. From that point, we may enter into dialogue, lengthy or brief, depending on your depth of knowledge and character.

[www.onelook.com]

The word is spelled 'vagaries' and is most certainly used
in common English speech, if of course, you know the word
in the first place. I have spent the last twenty years as
a medical researcher. The first ten I was free/lance and the
last ten I am partnered with thriteen physicians, ten of whom
are psychiatrists. My primary effeort for five years has been
to expand the modalities of diagnosis and treatment for children
with bi-polar disorder. Early intervention will literally take
a child with little chance of productive life and give that productive
potential back to him or her. I have written as sole author or
in multiple authorship over two hundred articles on bipolar illnes
including both organic implications and treatment and out of the
box theory. I state my experience only to qualify my poetry on mental
illness. I have spent three and one half years of my life in hopitals
when episodic. The poem written reflects, I feel, quite accurately
the manic phase of this disease as well as the rhetorical excess the
disease produces. Your point of "napkin scrawles" is spot on if that
posey was written by someone whose total understanding of mental illness
came from reading the "Three Faces of Eve" and "The Bell Jar". I have read
those tragic portrayals of insanity but my exerience and understanding
of it is a genetically inherent teacher that I live within and without,
both afflicted and committed to adding knowledge that may help a child
to integrate with other children instead of being rejected through psychological
banishment due to symptomology present from early on. Hope that helps and
though I have not expressed all of the "vagaries" of this disease I think
I've added to clarity if nothing else. Thanks. tom

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2009 10:55AM by easyeverett.

On the contrary, you have only confused me further. However, I would like to hire you, assuming your resume was just now presented. Vagaries; were I an old woman, I would pet your hand gently, reassuring you you won't have to be a doctor forever. In my current form, I fear triggering homophobia. I truly pity any man who must fill his head with so many things, you know you're all a bit strange for it? Where was I.. Ah, no, that was something else unrelated and not yet suitable.. Yes, now I remember.

No, what I meant was, translate the poem to English. Certainly, I can see some of what you mean, as well as your mastery of the form, but those things are not of my interest. Poetry leaves room for interpretation, English strives to do away with such confusion. The knowledge your present is clearly of vast importance, why dilute it with poetic form?

Hi Mr. P and I will be judiciously brief. I happen to think the poetic form can create insights far deeper, truer and more transcendent than cognitive reception alone. But those insights must flow into a mind prepared to accept and comprehend them and that takes a mind with great understanding and love of poetry. If the poem failed then the poem failed but since this is a poetry site and occasionally I enjoy writing poems about my passions then why not give it a try? You cannot judge me or the subject or the writing of a poem about the subject with anything but a subjective opinion that it just shouldn't be done because poetry is too limited in intellectual scope. I passionately disagree with you, subjectively, on that assumption. t.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2009 03:23AM by easyeverett.

... what I meant was, translate the poem to English. .... Poetry leaves room for interpretation, English strives to do away with such confusion. ... why dilute it with poetic form?

Mr P! This is a poetry site. Tom is one of the most talented poets we have had posting here for a long time. And you want him him to purge his posts of poetry, and stick to plain vanilla English. What are you doing here? Have you lost your sense of direction?

If you want a prosaic discussion of the topic, Percival, I suggest you contact Tom via PM to get hold of his several hundred articles. I consider this a brilliant piece of poetry. It presents the inner voice of the afflicted with pathos without resorting to effusive sentimentality or isipidness. I understand their perspective far more through Tom's poem than through reading any magazine or journal article on the subject.

Joe

Gentlemen. You know me. When am I delicate? When do I take steps against being misconstrued? Rarely! What fun would there be if I couldn't correct someone's mistakes? Many perceive my words as some form of insult, perhaps. But surely, gentlemen, you aren't so far from yourselves that you've forgotten the methods of familiarity? Sarcasm? Jest? Certainly, I am too familiar at times, but I feel I know everyone in one form or another. I no more think less of Easy or his work than of anyone else. Infact, that I offer for discussion means I think more of him.

Now, as to the poem. As I said, it does not interest me. That is not because it is of poor quality, far from it. It is because, to me, poetry is not a sufficient medium for such topics. Now, Tom, you say you prefer it. Well, if you follow, I prefer Aristotle to your Socrates.

As for the rest. Ian, My meaning was that I desired a translation of this specific poem, not a halting of all future works from Easy. Joe, I wanted a conversation with a living mind, not a dead manual.

"Now, as to the poem. As I said, it does not interest me." Hmm. Case closed!
I take it by your statement that your silence predominates and silently
elaborates on a poem when it does interst you. Ah. And you thought my poem
was hard to decipher. Just had to comment Mr. P because you are far more
complex than what you say would ever indicate...I think. tom

Tom,

Thanks for the new word: Quick definitions (cuirass)

▸ noun: medieval body armor that covers the chest and back.

The stanza it occurs in still is hard for me to understand. Me, I'd like the poem more if its diction was not so cuirass-like. In spite of its bravado, the speaker is still well-protected from his emotional involvement in the issue of the poem...how hard it is to be nuts in an insane world.


The top turns, spins, falls;
the afternoon light is too heavy;
words melt my mind...
and I will never be ready for hello.

amo,

Peter

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2009 10:26PM by petersz.

I used to spend time in a psychiatric hopital/clinic
environment when episoidic. As you know Peter the roll
and flow of alternating mood is sometimes very seasonal
and my episodes were directly related to change of season.
There was a character that always was there when I was there
in the spring. His manic ramblings were very close to the
rhythm and use of archaic, antiquated vocabulary I used in this
post. I've never suffered full blown mania, just our good old hyo-manic,
everything is cool with me dude, elevations, so I was always
there because of depression. This gentlemen who was a Professor
of Antiquities at Iowa Stae University, held two doctorate degrees
along with his required Masters. He did more to bring me out of
the black abyss of clinical depression than all the lithium salts, anti-convulsants and anitdeprssants on the planet. I was mesmerized by the illogical
logic of his ramblings. lI forced me to focus again outside of the
blackness onto another, living human being. Just thought I would
further amplify the "whys" of the poem. If I had written a less
rhetorically profound version of my experience I would, I think and
I may be wrong, unintenionally neutralized to impotence the experience
itself. Thanks Pete. Always good to hear valid and knowledgeable
analysis. tom

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2009 06:25PM by easyeverett.

You sir, are amusing; in the sense that I have yet to comprehend the patterns of your thought. If the poem hard to decipher? No. It is tedious to decipher. I'd prefer picking your brain in a legible format as opposed to removing all the phantasms you unintentionally placed. But really, I despise small talk. My point remains unanswered. The topic, not the poetic fancy, interests me. Would you like to discuss it in a medium designed for accurate transfer of information?

P.

There is, so far as I can tell, no medium more apt and accurate for disclosure of the psychological machinations of the human kind outside mythopoetic creation. The yammings of the logical positivists at the beginning of the last century in England and Germany should be enough to give the lie to the 'scientism's' pseudo-precision. Connotative language is far superior to clinical re:the subject matter of the poem

amo,

Peter

Nonsense. Slander from the Mystisistic left! Simply because none have come before me with both the mastery of language and psyche does not mean I cannot accomplish this lofty feat! Poppy-cockery! Habadashery!

P

Ok. Poppy-cockery in a hat emporium. Hey, got to give propers when propers are due. I do think, however, Siggy Freud (not to mention Gatuma Summatra) is strainin' and scratchin' to climb out of the psychotic permanence of his concrete sarcaphagous to debate the assertion that you are the first master of both the ethereal nature of psyche while, at the same time, serve also as the unequaled master of semantics. Well I'll be an overwhelmed gobersmacked, poppy-cocked, habadasher. In fact, James Joyce might enjoy a bit of this debate. I know he was a bleedin' lefty, but many "masters of the word" think Joyce had a bit of mastery himself. But, of course, as a lefty he is far too predictabe to enter the fray as a legitimate contender. How about old Edgar Poe? He had a little mastery himself of both the psyche and the application of semantic dexterity. But, alas, he was just a poet and we know from an inviolate pontificate that poetry is incapable of entertaing such erudite and lofty subjects. Hell, Mr. P., we are getting down to you debating you and I, for the life of me, don't see a winner in that debate.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2009 02:42AM by easyeverett.

Ah, but there is an important difference between them and myself. I do these things because I need to. They do them because they want to. I assure you, the hands of hatred are far steadier than any other. A man who merely wants something has choices, other things to do should he fail. A man who is starved will eat dirt. Funny thing about dirt, it has everything you need. You just need to know how to get to it.

As to the winner, well, keep in mind I don't strive for anything resembling victory. Of course this ensures me success should any be foolish enough to think these things are to be won.

Touche' Mr. P, Touche'. We agree completely on your last point. You mentioned earlier Aristotle. He was a bit of the "master" himself and mentor/teacher to a great many Greek philosophers who went on to write about Republics, cave shadows and dialectics along with other debate subjects of great import to philosophers and leisured nobility sitting, by invitation not avocation, on the Athenian court of Petition. Socrates, in his defense for courrupting the youth by creating his own gods, gave quite possibly the greatest defense of dialectic exchange ever given in the history of jurisprudence and letters. Yet, we are still debating those same brilliantly expressed Socratic issues all these years later. You can never win or lose a debate dealing with subjective absolutes, like God, or beauty, or intelligence, or, yes poetry, because they are inherently subjective, situational and volatile, in that opinions vary greatly among citizens of ancient Greece and citizens of modern Gotham. You are spot on and that was the point of my exercise which you obviously absorbed with little or no effort. Take care Mr. P. tom

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2009 06:43AM by easyeverett.

Tom, meet Urine,

Gee, after the war I went on to become a cowboy and an airplane pilot.

HOWEVER! You did open a door on one of my intrests, Greek History. Subjective absolutes, you left out politics. I oft wonder what Socrates would say in the subways of New York next Thrusday at five p.m. How openly would he view his fellow man?

Another disipline: Physics...One of physics (as a stand alone noun) greatest qualities is that it is absolute, and unchallangable, until someone with a brand new doctorate from MIT proves everything wrong and you have to start over. I was actually in the room with Feynman et al when the photos of the twisted F ring of Saturn came in. The entire chapter on orbital mechanics was rewritten that afternoon before tea. NASA was aghast. Dr. Mullins of the math dept used to go to the rodeos with me and we would ride bulls on weekends. NASA would tremble that he would put THAT mind on the back of a 2000 lb bull. They didn't seem as concerned with my mind, I guess they calculated, (NASA calculates, they don't "figger" as I was instructed by them) that the physical loss of my mind would not delay the lunar nor Martian landings by more than a day. Nice thing about physics is that there is no argument, everyone agrees, big bang, to string theory, it is all accepted as fact. However that last sentence is a damned lie.

When approaching the human mind, as it were, in medicine, is it viewed as an organ, or a computer's hard drive? In mecernary work, it's strictly an organ which can be rearranged to the detrement of the owner, and the accomplishment of the mission.

tlj
AECDM
BS physics U of Nevada
AA Greek History CSI
AS Agriculture CVSC
currently a nursing student at NMSU when not at work.

oh AECDM you ask? Aviator of Extraordinary Competence and Dubious Morals

Oh Tom, please don't challange Urine to a battle of wits, it is impolite to attack an unarmed man.

Pete, the new word, we used to use a word simualr to that "covrurass" which is an armor that applies to a different protion of anatomy.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2009 01:01PM by Merc.

P.
You can rephrase 'Mystisistic left' with 'Best Freshman Mathematician of 1963" if that makes you respect my credentials to talk about the limits of scientism rather than science. The worship of one mode of thought over all others, especially where it is not suited, is an impediment to clear thought. Your preference for the language of the sciences over the language of poetry when talking precisely about human emotions smacks of 'scientism' (look it up.).

amo,

Peter

Now Pete, 'member the last time you took this stance, I gave you sixteen rhyming, metered lines of nothing but physics.

The language of science is the language of poetry. AND please understand, I am not defending P.

I did offer him a job, but he'd'a worked his butt off in the hot sun. Offer was real, but so was the job.

Merc,

The language of science is the language of poetry.

Thanks for keeping us honest.

Peter

Celtic wings? Having lived under the Cloak of Manannan for several years, I feel I would know Celtic wings.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2009 10:29PM by Chesil1.

First, someone tell me how my use of colon and semicolon are, I'm testing them out.


Well Tom, now your real test for citizenship of the mule begins; You now face the three amigos: Myself, Merc and Peter. Should you weather the debate now beginning, or skilled enough, participate and hold your own, you will surely be considered a local. As I'm all for fair play, allow me to advise you: Merc and Peter are about the most amusing pair of fools you will ever find. Essentially the same person, their only real difference is the nature of events which fuel their seemingly bottomless cauldrons of shame, and form of the copious amounts of pride they use to cover the smell. The funny part is they're always at each other's throats, arguing against whatever the other is currently using as their personal smoke screen.

Now I, on the other hand, am the wildcard. You see, I am what they will become. But, my superiority to them is equally matched by my full-of-shitness. So, while they are more dependable for honesty, I am more dependable for truth. Now, if you'll pardon me, I have some old men to put in their place. Again, you have yet to answer my question.


Science, gentlemen, is not what either of you perceive it to be. Science is everything you fear, run from, and thus cannot perceive. The methodical ordering of knowledge is only one part of the whole which you fail to see, let alone feel. Discovery through the scientific method is the poetry, gentlemen. Only you are both too numb at your core to understand these processes and it's effects on the mind or soul, or whatever word you assume is the only definition of what one is; You are slow, having long ago cut your own hearts out, afraid of the beast. I am not, science is not. The magic, the poetry, that is in the unknown, in rearranging the perfectly categorized to the new information, and feeling the effects on your very being. Science, gentlemen, is the pursuit of all things. You, as I, are but categories in it's infinity.

Urine, when I was a lad I was actually taught in school that General Custer was not scalped because the savage redskins respected his courage too much to mutilate the body. I told a Shoshone pal of mine about that the next summer. He took me home to talk to his dad. I told his dad what my all knowing teacher had imparted upon me. His pappy sat me on the ground before him and told me that IF the indians had respected Lt. Col Custers courage, they would have eaten his heart. The only thing they fears was insanity, and the reason they did not touch him is they thought he was crazy. You would have little to fear from Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull.
Oh, in your goofy remarks, you seem to forget that you are addressing a man of science. He is probably too smart to agree with you.
As for Pete and me beating up each other, that is only politically. I disagree with anything he says politically, and he with me. But I respect his right to say it and to hold that off color, haphazard, completely silly view.

Don't pull that dumb soldier routine with me Merc. You've heard far too much of my nonsense, and kept pace, for that to work anymore. As to Tom, I was talking to him about the science bit. Though by all means Tom, add your opinion.

Wasn't talk to him about..*

I can usually keep up with a light trot.

My point exactly.

Wow, I gotta watch the bushes a little better, you were closer than I thought.

You doin' ok?

Are we back to this then?

I didn't keep up on that one. Back to what?

I'm saying you're avoiding the topic. Again, I may be wrong. Correct me.

Can't avoid what I can't see. I don't have time right now to reread everything and try to figgure out what you're saying.

I may have lost you on a light trot tonight... catch ya later.

You got a home again?

I'm saying that my current theory is that you are below me in the totem pole of self awareness due to there being regions of thought which you don't want to think of. Due to shame, fear, and the like.

There is nothing I am not willing to consider. there may be things that I have considered and dismissed. I do not subscribe to your misguided theory that I am beneath, nor below you in anything, and have been is so many very tight life threatening situations during my time on this planet, that I seriously doubt that you can match my shadow in self awareness. To really live, you must almost die.
Shame is very low on my chart, fear left me before I jumped from the barn peak with a bedsheet tied to my belt at age of four, and has not returned in any great quantity, and there is very little like. And I try not to end sentences with prepositions.

Then, assuming the given information is correct, I am incorrect. However, I wish to determine why we differ on opinions, as a current theory of mine states that reaching a certain level of self awareness, all mind will become uniform. So, why do you think we are, and what makes us, different?

Stating that you may be incorrect is redundant.

Your theory has more holes in it than a 50 Chevie in the Fla keys.

"Reaching a certain level of self awareness, all mind will become uniform" it's been done. Zen stated it intelligently some time ago. So, by this "theory" when I reach your level, we will want the same woman, and if she is at our level, she will want herself?

No, I don't think different makes us.

You seem to imply that you have more than one theory at a time. You're either a whiz kid or more like my brother who arrives at a conclusion, creates a premise and makes up some logic to connect them. I'd bet the latter.

Holes you say? Whenever you are challenged, you reply with arrogance and pride. There are only two types of people who carry these traits in abundance; cowards and brutes. Now, despite your constant reminders of a bloody past, I doubt you're a brute. But perhaps you were once, and have calmed over the years? I am uncertain. To further complicate this equation, and lend to my inclinations of cowardice, you are religious. Every religious person I've met, I don't consider the net "meeting" someone, is a coward; those who aren't cowards are zealots, a nice way of saying psychopath. Still further, there is, aside from your destructive pride, shall we say.. "self satisfaction." Good boy, do god's work, protect America, so forth. Maybe, maybe, you are simply satisfied and waiting to die?

Now, if you're imbuing "theory" with the connotation of "theory of all existence", not my meaning when using it. I theorize reality is a certain way, sure. I also theorize that chicken will be on sale today, being that time of the week. As to my intelligence, stop pretending you doubt my capacity, it became childish some time ago.

You always lead to an attack on religion. I WILL NOT DISCUSS MY PERSONAL BELIEFS for your tortured enjoyment.

So in a very unreligious maner, I will suggest that you go somewhere and die.

Yes, I see. You can say what you will about my beliefs, but I can't about yours. I understand perfectly well. Explain then, before you submit to reason, why you have such ridiculous notions of me. Perhaps having seen so many use power unwisely? Perhaps the solution you seek is in advising, rather than belittling me?

Tom, Here's my response to Terry on my thread. It pertains to how much space you take on the board.

amo,

Peter

Merc,

re: Tom pushing people off. I figure he's old enough to be able to know that he is doing that and that it is not fair to all those who only post once in a while. I guess, Terry, that your mentioning to me is sufficient to motivate me to say something to him. As an anarchist, I'm sure you know how much I hate being anyone else's cop or daddy or conscience, but I will take on the task.

Thanks for stopping by to read the poem.

amo,

Peter