why is the classical concept of
poetry, still associated with philosophy?
that vogue should have died
with heidegger, in the 20th century,
yet it still persists!
nothing, written by a poet
is worth comparison to a paragraph of
immaculate musing...
i'm in no defence of the latter
method...
there is nothing essential about
making comparison between poetry
and philosophy...
poetry is blind, in the face of
having to compete with journalism,
there is no tabloid-poetic,
-poetics, given the weight of
technique to handle it as: identifiable...
what is there to be identified about
poetics?
cubes, expressions,
the sur-reality of dreams?
common threads?
the tabloid of the worm's
genesis, becomes a ******'s gridlock
into the sewers at the end of the day...
papier-mâché...
poetry can't compete with
journalism,
in the same way that it couldn't
be deemed a worthy
opponent of philosophy...
up-my-own-****-and-ready-to-bite
my-own-testicles-off...
ah... but pouring a pint,
was always going to be easier than
industrial roofing, wasn't it?
now all humpty-dumpty
is to care about is: what other
people either "think" or "feel"...
because the question self-prompts
itself:
so... why would i really want
to give a ****, about what you "think"?!
can't you just shut up, and actually: think?!
i love the argument contra "feeling"...
i love it because it's self-defeating
in the sense of: i really don't care what
you "think"...
freedom of speech, a mighty seasaw:
feel
speech
think
vic. versus...
erm... what's the difference?
i'm starting to find the "thinking" ones
being claustrophobic in their thinking,
that they need a freedom, namely a freedom
to speak, to be allowed a freedom to feel...
oppositely? those with the "freedom" to feel,
have no freedom to think...
which makes their freedom of speech:
blah blah blah, dog whistles, etc.