“Let’s you n’ me snap the furcular.”
We did— you won the larger half.
i had no wishes anyway: i wanted you
to win. i tracked the parabola of your mood
a good few years— i saw//see
no evidence a wish came true
—didn’t you make one after all?
Were you content back then?— Any regrets?

Everything i see these days
anticipates nostalgia: i lost something |
i am losing it | i will lose it— it resets
everything to 0— i’ll start over (that’s what i do).
—A warning: don’t cramp me in
a singular effort of mobility… all push no pull
: we are not rivers… fluids circle our interiors
…flip the bulb on in the brain…

|—“we | need not follow | the example
of blood | its consequences |—there is
autonomy between | process & product.”
How to interrupt the glut of fluids with a leaf or twig…
…how to quit hunger on a diet of blessed wafers?
An egg cup of crap wine won’t draw
me God’s profile: i’d rather be all process
& nothing to show for it.

Posted by:DPM

DPM is an idea-logue (sic) and object-oriented speculative realist, attempting to be response-able in an irresponse-able society.

12 thoughts on ““Let’s you n’ me snap the furcular.”

  1. I love the tension between structure and freedom. “Time no longer flows. It spouts.” Gaston Bachelard, The Intuition of the Instant.

    1. i sometimes feels as though, after years of writing poetry, the structure is ingrained in the freedom, it falls into place not so much against my will, but without my complete, conscious attention.

  2. This reminds me of my stint in theological seminary — or, rather, the sense of liberation I felt upon dropping out, and leaving Divinity utterly unmastered (though, I’m pretty sure the fact that my branch of the consortium went bankrupt as a result of the 2008-2009 recession was a sign…)… In any case, I have no regrets!

    1. What is the impetus for studying theology? This may seem ridiculous to you, but i don’t really understand. It can’t just be about faith, because faith is something direct, through Bible study & prayer, right, through the community of collective belief? Y’know, in England we don’t have the same relationship as Americans to religion. We have our street preachers, who everyone ignores, & churches are everywhere, but they are a calm, pleasant, nonthreatening, even emasculated sight; just a part of the landscape’s identity.
      i also imagine studying theology as something like Milton’s reason for visiting Galileo in prison: a deeper, more intellectual search for the whereabouts of God. But i don’t know if that would be correct.

      1. Quite the contrary, Daniel. It’s ridiculous that more people don’t ask this question (or questions, in general, for that matter). In any case, I’m sure that my impetus was not THE impetus. We talked a lot in seminary about our response to the sense of “being called,” but what that meant for everyone else in my cohort who arrived already thoroughly indoctrinated, was probably a lot different than what it meant for me, as I had literally just been baptized for the first and only time less than a year earlier (I only ever belonged to one church, and that was for a total of about 4 years during adulthood, beginning around the time my daughter was having her second open-heart surgery, and my husband and I were in the throes of marital strife, and I was feeling very much in need of community). Anyway, I’d initially thought seminary could lead to a viable/suitable career as a chaplain, but I learned rather quickly that there was nothing about my way of being in the world and in relationship with and/or of service to others that required the sanctioning of a political church body, or my “selling” of religious propaganda, not to mention that the whole rigmarole seemed to involve a logical/philosophical fallacy at every turn, at best, and utter hypocrisy, at worst. So, what “called” me to want to learn about “doing God’s work,” and to discern what said “work” would entail for me, probably had nothing to do with most others’ sense of “being called,” but I would maintain that the “what” in my case was no less holy. I suppose, if I’d been in any position to do so (that is, if I hadn’t at the time been a parent of young kids with high needs), I would’ve preferred to study in a graduate program in religious studies or philosophy. Basically, I just want to know how to know things, because that seems the best way to be someone who helps others, and I needed to take a very circuitous route toward figuring that out…

      2. Seems the trying produced an inside (at least enough) to divert you to a more profitable (intellectually) way. i think that’s pretty much it for me. Knowing how to know= being human & all that i am interested in, which means being interested & unbiased toward everything (pretty much).
        i think people like us have to have indulged, dipped our toes, to know the water is cold. i had my spiritual moments. i was at one time of the utter belief in a spiritual dimension to reality, but it was my own system which i was devising based on reading. It was hopelessly naive. It all started after i started to wonder why, if the Big Bang was the sudden arrangement of disparate particles coming together, in a void, to create something, essentially (as i saw it) nothing becoming or even creating something, & if, as Bohm talks about in Wholeness & the Implicate Order, it is consciousness that organizes the quantum by seeing it, then why was there nothing or no consciousness at the Big Bang, but something came of nothing. This puzzled me for years & informed all my reading.
        i have never answered the paradox (obviously) it still interests me, but differently: how did i even put that together? It is the uniqueness of my humanness, my being an anomaly, that allows me to postulate such a thing.
        i have had great difficulty explaining this to people, i don’t know if they quite get what i was driving at. It involved my conviction that the macro & micro must mirror each other thus the disorder of the void before creation must mirror the disorder of the void which we manifest through (sub[un])conscious seeing; except it is only accepted that something brought form from void in religion & spirituality, fraught with so many hypocrisies & impasses, but science seemed comfortable to saw a vacuum contained something, in its nothingness, then by some sort of law of averages coagulated to become something, when they even now don’t seem to admit of there being anything (or not much anyway) in a vacuum.
        Sorry to go on.

      3. The impetus of my own study of theology – and my study was only a sideline – was in part due to my studying 17c English history. It was a period when the Bible became the staple of English literacy, the KJV having been published at the start of the century. The middle of the century was also a period of intense debate and freedom of thought; people explored the Bible, queried what it meant, challenged the idea that it was a rulebook, took it as more of a roadmap. In particular, I read George Fox, Isaac Penington, and William Penn, all very specific in their faith but one a revolutionary, one a mystic, and one a philosopher. You don’t need to have faith or religion (two different things) to study theology. In fact, having a religion often clouds the issue, because it makes you predisposed to a certain theological viewpoint. It is possible to detach oneself from religion and study theology as a phenomenon in its own right, as a way that humans look at the world. To me, it is part of the endless study of human consciousness and perception. We are not rational beings, no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that we are. If we were, no one would write poetry. No one could possibly have written the 23rd Psalm.

      4. i think Blake was informed by some of those folk querying the Bible, the Muggletonians & Swedenborgians, i think were part of that. i read some of that stuff when i was doing my dissertation on Blake: Thomas Tomkinson ‘The Muggletonian Principles Prevailing…’ & Swedenborg’s ‘Heaven & Hell’ & ‘The Divine Love & Wisdom’ but more to find out what Blake was so miffed about. i don’t recall my findings well, because they didn’t really inform what i wanted to say regarding Blake, so it got squeezed out. i remember Blake didn’t like how Swedenborg believed his powers were exclusive to him, because Blake believed he had such powers to peer beyond the veil of Vala with the help of Los’s callipers.

        Thanks for this input, i wasn’t establishing a negative position to Theology, i just, earnestly, have no understanding as to the “impetus” behind somebody studying it, but now i understand more & may look into it a bit when i get back to my King James in England, which i actually sort of miss. Good for dipping in & out of & perplexing yourself.

        i completely agree with your conclusion. i have been reading some articles by John Zerzan the anarcho-primitivist & i can’t really agree with him because he doesn’t seem to accept that we are not rational, but that it is only because of language, culture & technology that we are blinded, as if they somehow invaded us & control us, when it is we who, whether rationally or not, created them & then in our complexity, became controlled. But then isn’t that just us, through the equivocation of a tool, controlling ourselves, just as the invention of any tool inevitably has a controlling influence over us? Is the hunter-gatherer he so extols the virtues of, not controlled by the spear or the fire, or even the cave. Isn’t reliance an evolutionary practice? It seems to me, we are here because the stepping stones offered something forth pushing forward for. i don’t know. Sometimes it seems the more i learn the less i know, if only because a host of questions requiring attention come to the fore.
        i find him interesting as an extreme viewpoint of the status quo, but i don’t think i could advocate his philosophy.

        Thanks as always for the fresh perspective. Always appreciated.

  3. I think you’d really like Heidegger’s Being and Time, if you haven’t tackled it already. I read it almost half my life ago, so I don’t remember much in the way of specifics, but “Nothing” plays a huge role (which is one reason I’m so enthralled with Bob’s poetry!), as does H’s at the time unprecedented attempt to tackle philosophy from the outside in, in that he tries to wrestle his way out of our dependency on metaphysics to tackle any ontological consideration (he was the precursor to the French deconstructionists, i.e., Derrida, who somehow tricked academic-types into thinking they were making sense, which they mostly weren’t), which sounds to me very similar to what you’re on about 😉 — and no, it’s not easy to even conceive of such things, much less to explain them, and it’s true in my experience, as well, that so very few people care, anyway. People rely on religion because they neither want to conceive of the problems nor the solutions, and they certainly don’t want to question their own senses, or identify and grapple with paradoxes — they simply want to be told what a miracle is, and then to believe in it because they were told to do so. Einstein had it right in this respect, I think, saying, “Either everything is a miracle, or nothing is.” That is probably the best premise to start with for any spiritual or intellectual discipline.

    1. I’ve read Heidegger’s On the Way to Language. i’ll get round to Being & Time, in good time.

      i actually even the capacity to just do as you’re told & not be bothered by the acquiescence. No worries about me doing it though, it isn’t something you can just switch on.

Discuss Below

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.