poetry critical

online poetry workshop



Knowing The Concept of "Should"
Notecompsure

We are nothing more than our molecules
 1
But perspective,
 2
And are unconsciously dancing the same dance,
 3
But perspective ruins me.
 4
We are no different,
 5
Yet I am not them.
 6
We are everything,
 7
Yet we are only what we know.
 8
We are only humans
 9
And the flaw of man is his consciousness.
 10

12 Mar 07

Rated 7.5 (7.5) by 2 users.
Active (2): 6, 9
Inactive (0):

(define the words in this poem)
(11 more poems by this author)



Add A Comment:
Enter the following text to post as unknown: captcha

Comments:

hmm - im not sure that conciousness is 'the flaw of man' - nor is it 'unnatural to understand your unconciousness'

as all things come from conciousness and are a product of conciousness through desire - and conciousness is the fundament and core and nexus etc etc etc

i would say we 'are in the very concious process of becoming the same thing' - but in an deeply unconcious way returning to what we already know in our unconciousness'
 — Mongrol

also never live under the tyranny of 'should - but subscribe to the liberty of 'could'
 — Mongrol

the question remains how do you know if we are flawed if any perspective is guilty mrs heisenberg?


st3ntorian
 — unknown

Line 2?  Necessary line or did you mean to delete it and move it to line 4?
We are in the unconscious process of becoming more molecules?  Is that what the 'same thing' is?  Who is no different?  Each person or each molecule?

I find this entire "essay" unusual.  Obviously, it's not unnatural for Mankind to have a concept of should.  

This is a little choppy and perhaps needs some editing to be coherent.  It's a bit tough to decipher as written.

Imc-
 — Isabelle5

Wow, cool, I appreciate the comments. I rearranged the poem after some editing inspired by your insightful commenting.

Mongrol, you were saying that you don't necessarily agree with what I've said so I attempted to specifically rearrange my last stanza to better explain what I mean, however there is a level of ambiguity which I like to maintain in my style. I totally disagree with the way you look at consciousness though, so I hope maybe you can get something from my opposing view.

st3ntorian, you brought up The question, and that's cool, I understand what you are trying to say to me. However, what I think you're doing is accepting ignorance on a level by looking at what I am saying so blankly almost. Perhaps you aren't trying to be as bitter as the question comes across, but either way, why not consider that if I'm correct in my analysis, that all consciousness is a level of flaw and failure, then you are aiding my idea and reflecting this sort of human nature, devoid of nature where there is clashing and opposition over things beyond basic needs. So what, since we're both wrong, focus on how you aren't and build from there. Well, whatever . . .

And Isabelle, thanks again for your thoughts. The repetition was intontional however, I guess you don't appreciate it, but it's one way I try to create coherence in my poetry and not 'essays'. I like the idea of the rythm of words and in music there is always some level of repetion so I think it makes sense to do it with words for me at least. And if you notice it was incrimental repetion, not static, so I tried to add as much poetic flare as possible.  I did rework the poem a bit though, as I knew I would, I just had a lot of ideas floating that I wanted to get down as soon as I could. Hopefully you can connect a bit better to this reworked version.

Thanks all.
 — Notecompsure

i don't know if this was a quote or own words, but gnormal said
'we are all different points of view'.

this poem reminded of that.
nice poem.
for line 10, consider singular - human instead of humans.
also, 'therefore' seems to mathematical for s1. would you consider leaving l9 out completely?
line 12 is defeating the objective of this poem. we know nature only through ourselves.
i think the 11-14 could be formatted better, with more of a clearer thought.

nice idea.
 — varun

lol i wrote out a long detailed reply to you Note - but once again for some reason PC didnt allow it to be posted

too long perhaps?

but yes your revisions work :)

-Mong-
 — Mongrol

I agree with your ideas, thank you. I'll need to think about how I want to reshape this htough.
 — Notecompsure

I still don't understand line 2!  Do you mean it like this:

We are nothing more than our molecules,
just perspective
and unconsciously dancing the same dance?

Otherwise, I can't see how 'but perspective" belongs in that line.  

This sounds like the old, "We are all one, everything is one."

I do not find consciousness a flaw, perhaps that's why I don't get this.
 — Isabelle5

how is 'we are all one, everything is one' old Isabelle?

and can truth ever be considered 'old'?
 — Mongrol

yeah ok, I see, sorry, my punctuation was way off and I'm not sure why I didn't notice that. I have it reading the way I want to know though. This isn't some old saying you qouted though, in fact I'm denying that we are all one because we can't see that we are all one. That is why consciousness is a flaw. The only way to be one with everything is to think nothing and to know nothing.
 — Notecompsure

0.503s