poetry-doggeral-et-al's name

Life is experiential. Conversely, the lack of experience is death. There is no state-of-death as existence is predicated on events, and without events, there is but simple cessation of life. The concept of eternity is a construct established for the sole purpose of myth-substantiation. Either I or those in my sphere feel the need to validate experiences remembered.

To illustrate a construct: take the concept of time. We insist equating the abstract—time—to the physical concreteness of physical shape: height, breadth, and depth. Time was constructed, by man, to give continuity to a chaotic assemblage of remembered experiences; as well to allow a fourth intersection in this dimension. You might agree to meet at Fourth and Main Sts., on the ground level, but should you not have created time, you would never meet. You need this co-ordinate to ensure the meeting. Of course the next problem we encountered was how to delineate time within our rational three-dimensional construct.

Our perceived dimensionality defines every aspect of our environment, whether abstract or concrete. We deal in polarities. We cannot conceive of a thought that is not defined within these three dimensions. Take length: it has two ends—an absolute in three dimensions—a start and an end. Between these two points lies the middle. Another absolute, as one cannot have two ends, without a middle. Without middle, the two ends become one—a point, and a point cannot exist except as a mathematical concept/construct. Why? No continuity; no dimensionality—non-existent in a three dimensional world. Even with mathematics—man’s purest language/philosophy—a point is described outside of itself: as the intersection of two non-parallel lines, which share the same plane, and so, with circular logic, the intersection of these two lines is called a point. In essence, in our three dimensional world, a point is actually a “line” we will agree not to sub-divide further, based on the construct of our philosophical language of mathematics.

Keeping the above gobble-de-gook in mind, how was time defined in order to give it validity in our three dimensional world? Simple: we gave this construct polarity, with the two endpoints called past and future and between the two, we assigned the term present.

Immediately we see a discrepancy, as on a line where we have a start and an end, all in-between is called the middle. With time we perceive what we have named the distant past, the past, and the recent past. Same with describing the future: the present is that which is happening this moment, or in other words at this point—the intersection of past and future. A point is the intersection of two non-parallel lines that share the same plane, remember? Hold on! Stop time! If to have a point in time we must have the two converging lines, crossing at some point in time—we must have two lines! They have to be past and future, hence the present is the point of intersection—a non-existent place other than within the construct of our mathematical, philosophical language. Hmmmm.

So it follows that allowing the “present”, defined as the intersection of two non-parallel time-lines (past and future), then these two time-lines reflect non-continuity, which belies our thinking in terms of past, present, and future.

One possible inference from this scenario is the concept of future is a construct providing us with a reference point for what we call the past. For me this puts one of our usually negative-toned cliché to the forefront—if not the only truism—of our temporally oriented philosophy: “He/She lives in the past”. Where else can he/she live?

What is poetry: it is what Yeats, Dickenson, Browning Rhoethe, and the myriad of others wrote. Full of imagery, simile, metaphor, etc.; typically presented in some semblance of form, be it iambic pentameter, other metric form, or free verse; usually has a rhyme scheme such as aabb, abab, abba, etc., or no rhyme whatsoever; and uses alliteration, sight "rhymes", even dissonance, to impart the overall flavor of the poet's concept. The foregoing is not intended to be all-inclusive regarding what is poetry, rather a very basic primer, as well as a reference point for what I write.

What is doggeral: it is what Bonnie Parker and I write. Oh, there are many other that fall under this category, but many are still alive (and they think they're poets) so far be it from me to denigrate their "poetry" and burst their bubble.

Yes, I freely admit to writing mostly doggeral, mainly due to my lack of discipline. Sadly, maybe even a lack of true poetry within my soul. I know I love music and can't sing; I love dance and lack rhythym; I love poetry, but this one I do try and try and try....