Hello Poetry
Submit your work and get some sparkles! Create free account
removed.polaroid-scrabblePoems
basic arithmetic in terms of punctuation, otherwise? simply the arithmetic of punctuation: what does (,) equal? what does (.) equal? what does (:) equal? what does (-) equal? what does (;) equal? come on, quick! quick! give me a number! to think, is to not narrate,                                much of what is regarded as    "thinking", simply becomes as art of narration        that is sofa-bound, i.e. so comfortable that it feels it has no inclination toward the use of hands as ever being idle, it simply replaces   hands with a tongue...                     hence: idle speech,                 hence political speech; so if the "devil" has work for idle hands, then "god" has work for the idle zunge                                        (tongue)... but most people don't think,    because their thinkling is solely about narrating,                   their day-to-day...                and i appreciate this custom, in the cognitive realm...          i really do...               how many jokes ushered into the void of one's silence, neither whisphers, nor hummings, nor whistling...         wiser still, essentially unchanged... but heidegger's aphorism no. 285    really bothers me...             the reader looking into the narrator given the existentialist inverted commas    (iberian inverted questioning    ¿   ?          that's the first step toward    an iberian existentialism)                         said the third person,     with third party sources, the middle man, the second person, and then the reader   of the writer's original testimony?    if northern existentialism (french / german...   the english were too reactionary, and too easily bored by the continental drift)        encompasses the tool that's "      "    then the iberian tool has to be the inverted question mark, i.e.       ¿   ?, sitting comfortably? no? how about a wheelchair... let me just break your legs and your spine.        but aphorism 285: "worldview",      "grounding", "configuring"...        i don't understand this allocation of ambiguity, and an italic stress on da-sein / da-sein...    aren't all the three descriptive elements /    adjectives the purposive sentiments for                    originating the concept of dasein? i had to counter with an iberian existential tool...    after all i said, 'he said', "we said"...                                   it's a third party medium of supposed ambiguity...          if there's a santa claus (satan's clause), then there's pontius pilate's clause,   found in the existential tool of     double-ditto "     "   or as the english like to say: inverted commas;    or the ritual: of washing your hands clean    from passing the judgement...    they're citation marks to be honest, come on, let's be pompous, they donned 19th top-hats      at ascot's horse races! who's fooling who?
0
Jun 26, 2017
Jun 26, 2017 at 7:25 AM UTC
iberian existentialism contra northern existentialism (¿qua? vs. "qua")
basic arithmetic in terms of punctuation, otherwise? simply the arithmetic of punctuation: what does (,) equal? what does (.) equal? what does (:) equal? what does (-) equal? what does (;) equal? come on, quick! quick! give me a number! to think, is to not narrate,                                much of what is regarded as    "thinking", simply becomes as art of narration        that is sofa-bound, i.e. so comfortable that it feels it has no inclination toward the use of hands as ever being idle, it simply replaces   hands with a tongue...                     hence: idle speech,                 hence political speech; so if the "devil" has work for idle hands, then "god" has work for the idle zunge                                        (tongue)... but most people don't think,    because their thinkling is solely about narrating,                   their day-to-day...                and i appreciate this custom, in the cognitive realm...          i really do...               how many jokes ushered into the void of one's silence, neither whisphers, nor hummings, nor whistling...         wiser still, essentially unchanged... but heidegger's aphorism no. 285    really bothers me...             the reader looking into the narrator given the existentialist inverted commas    (iberian inverted questioning    ¿   ?          that's the first step toward    an iberian existentialism)                         said the third person,     with third party sources, the middle man, the second person, and then the reader   of the writer's original testimony?    if northern existentialism (french / german...   the english were too reactionary, and too easily bored by the continental drift)        encompasses the tool that's "      "    then the iberian tool has to be the inverted question mark, i.e.       ¿   ?, sitting comfortably? no? how about a wheelchair... let me just break your legs and your spine.        but aphorism 285: "worldview",      "grounding", "configuring"...        i don't understand this allocation of ambiguity, and an italic stress on da-sein / da-sein...    aren't all the three descriptive elements /    adjectives the purposive sentiments for                    originating the concept of dasein? i had to counter with an iberian existential tool...    after all i said, 'he said', "we said"...                                   it's a third party medium of supposed ambiguity...          if there's a santa claus (satan's clause), then there's pontius pilate's clause,   found in the existential tool of     double-ditto "     "   or as the english like to say: inverted commas;    or the ritual: of washing your hands clean    from passing the judgement...    they're citation marks to be honest, come on, let's be pompous, they donned 19th top-hats      at ascot's horse races! who's fooling who?
Written by
removed.polaroid-scrabble
36/M
Jun 26, 2017
Jun 26, 2017 at 7:25 AM UTC
Request permission to use this poem