From: bob@netxcom.netx.com (Robert Thralls)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: alternative vwpt. Re: Poem--Essay on Poetry
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:27:07 GMT
Organization: NetExpress Inc., Vienna, VA, USA


stark raving sane wrote:
>
>doug:
>>alix:
>>
>	(here could begin a discourse on a concept I will call truth,
>	and it goes something like, a truth new every time not contra
>	dicting. or soemthing like this, give me time, and I will
>	work on it. it sounds pretty hokey so far, so I might give up)
>

points have anti-points, not contradicting, but more like supportive
of each other... complementary, if you will. It is allowed to grow
and that may alter its appearance, but not that it is an untruth, 
not that it was an untruth before, only that it worked as truth before,
and this works as truth now. All that is important is what works as 
truth now, in the world that it must function within.

>
>	but! people, sometimes my attitude towards writing is very
>violent, "I am So Angry That I want To Grab these people's Eyes and
>force them to cry so that they see the shamefullness of their ways"

emotion. humanity. cycles. hmmm. everyone must draw the line of how
far they go, as long as the physical nature remains within your
world, uneffecting the other, you'll do well to write violently, and 
just maybe, just maybe, someone will say: 
"wow, she could have cried my eyes out; what was it she was trying to tell me?".

>
>	see how these contradictions live inside of me? I want to
>be a pacifist I am militant. What do I want?

You want to be a pacifist, but you have to make a point. Draw a line
as to how far you go, if you only use words, then you have not really
done much [physically], if you use your hands, then you have interfered.
Passivve afrontage using words can often make one think about what he 
is doing, also it may only drive the rage further. Metaphorical violence
must be used with caution, for it could have [meta]physical reprocussions.

A poor example: (not all inclusive), but it is an example:
	A mother's scolding to her child is acceptable because it works,
	until the child draws his own circle around himself and declairs
	himself an entity. until that time, he is but an extension of 
	his mother, and therefore her violent nature is self contained.
	It was meant to alter her own world, apart of her, that extension.
	Her attitude is quite different when the extension is about 30 years
	of age. She may be able to rely upon that [ever] open line of 
	communication, but the nature of the violence in her attack will
	be quite different. She will want to impose that value, still,
	but realizes[?] that she will be shut out if the violence 
	goes beyond that certain point.
(does this make sense?)

>
>	um? anything else? O yeah, purely for diplomatic reasons:
>I responded to a fellow once by misunderstanding him on purpose.
>People do this sometimes becuase they want to make points. (This
>was one of those times where I was being a violent writer. Deceptive,
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^
>I apologize. Especially to all the people who believe me to be True.
>Only jtrue is true)

Deception is naught what I would think... I think sometimes without
friction (misunderstanding) sometimes the way to a world you wish to 
enter will not be on the map.

Hey, if it works in someones world, then it is, therfore an effective tool.
(Not that I endorse such activity, mind you.)

>
>	No one is pure.

nobody, not even the rain.... 

>
>(will I tire myself out by explaining this? pure? integrity?
>o shoot. too much to explain. too much context missing. give me
>another day)

Too much to fight off, too little to defend? perhaps.

>-- 
>stark raving sane!   sheila@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>


no signature required
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems