Author Topic: 7  (Read 7177 times)

Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
Re: 7
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2017, 10:07:28 AM »
I often think I am one of the doofi, and here I intend to share the data.  
I didn't take this as necessarily death.  There are plenty of other templates to meaning for this rugged little piece of cryticism. :)

Ahead,
a void
needing
gravitas
and thought.

First, there is the view that this author is writing about  . . . writing.  Has he written the piece into a corner?  Have the inspirational winds hit the doldrums?  Is it the occasion to rediscover the thread?   The poem could also be a coded instruction - if, for example, the space is removed from L.2, we would have . . . a directive.   It has otherwise been variously phrased as live for today, YOLO, and Don't think, Meat, it can only hurt the team."

Another plausible take is that the title refers to the seventh day- the last day of creation.  Following seven days of creation, what lies ahead for the Deity?  for us?  Perhaps some sense of a void following the completion of the divine agenda. 

There are other lines of thought which follow interpreting the poem in relation to the title - 7 - as in: we are on the verge of 8.  The number 8 is the number of the perfection, the infinity.   In mathematics the symbol of the infinity is represented by a 8 laid down.  8 is the symbol of the cosmic Christ.  8 is the number designating the immutable eternity or the self-destruction.  It represents also the final point of the manifestation.

In China, the 8 expresses the totality of the universe.  Number of the balance and of the cosmic order, according to the Egyptians.  Number expressing the matter, it is also the symbol of the incarnation in the matter which becomes itself creative and autonomous, governing its own laws.  

The number eight corresponds to the New Testament, according to Ambroise.   It is the symbol of the new Life, the final Resurrection and the anticipated Resurrection that is the baptism.  According to Clement of Alexandria, the Christ places under the sign of 8 the one he made to be born again.  

8 represents the the totality and the coherence of the creation in evolution.

In China, it expresses the totality of the universe.   The Pythagoreans have made the number 8 the symbol of the love and the friendship, the prudence and the thinking and they have called it the Great "Tetrachtys".  In Babylon, in Egypt and in Arabia, it was the number of the duplication devoted to the sun, from where the solar disc is decorated of a cross with eight arms.  The number 8 means the multiplicity, for the Japanese.

With these cosmic symbolic connotations, 7 puts the reader on the verge of infinity or something less [more].  

Death?  I didn't see it.

T


Thanks for your detailed review and thoughts, T. You give the piece a lot of credit for the possibilities it contains, much of it unintentional on my part. I dropped the title in at the last minute but am fascinated by the complexities you mention. The sense behind the piece when I wrote it wasn't actually death - I threw that in there to address Lon's seemingly gratuitous opening comment and spat with drab.   

Offline Tom 10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8850
Re: 7
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2017, 10:45:35 AM »

Mark, sometimes when a person writes, the words put themselves together from [for lack of an adequate language for these things] their subconscious, or because they can sense the [cosmic] hum of the words without thinking through how to to articulate the rightness of the word choices.  Sometimes the creative burst exposes a new vein of perspective, or insight, or whatever but may not be immediately apparent or explainable.  It is what it does without analysis, which can come later.  But you already know this.
 :)
T

Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
Re: 7
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2017, 11:07:28 AM »

Yes... at risk of sounding too flaky, I occasionally have these dreams of avidly reading for hours, very very interesting stuff (but I can never remember any of it, of course) seated comfortably in a quiet corner of some enormous, celestial-feeling library. Then I wake up feeling inspired, sometimes with a few lines already formed into a little poem, and later I'll write it out and edit it into something. This is one of those but I remember the phrase "path of destiny" being in there, which I edited out in the writing as it sounded too schlocky. 

Offline Lon Palmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Writing Doctor (contact by PM)
    • Lon Palmer's blog
Re: 7
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2017, 03:14:45 PM »
Thanks for your detailed review and thoughts, T. You give the piece a lot of credit for the possibilities it contains, much of it unintentional on my part. I dropped the title in at the last minute but am fascinated by the complexities you mention. The sense behind the piece when I wrote it wasn't actually death - I threw that in there to address Lon's seemingly gratuitous opening comment and spat with drab.   


It was not gratuitous.

Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
Re: 7
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2017, 03:35:21 PM »

Okay Lon, inform me about the molecular relationships along the cutting edge of a follicle bisecting instrument. Telling me you don't get my poem instead of going away and thinking about it or saying nothing implies that because you don't get it, from whatever lofty heights you occupy, then the poem must be intrinsically deficient in some way. But you're right, it's not gratuitous if it's part of some brand awareness campaign..

Offline Lon Palmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Writing Doctor (contact by PM)
    • Lon Palmer's blog
Re: 7
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2017, 04:12:25 PM »
It was a very simple statement, intended to be taken at face value, with nothing implied.

Nonetheless, you inferred much, it would seem.

With a little sarcasm thrown in for good measure.

So, to be clear: I didn't get it, so I said that I didn't get it because I didn't get it.

Now, however, I get it.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 04:22:58 PM by Lon Palmer »

Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
Re: 7
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2017, 05:30:08 PM »
It was a very simple statement, intended to be taken at face value, with nothing implied.

It has no value. If nothing is implied, then that's another way of saying it's meaningless, which was sort of my point.

Nonetheless, you inferred much, it would seem.

What did I infer? That it was gratuitous.

With a little sarcasm thrown in for good measure.

I'm afraid so.

So, to be clear: I didn't get it, so I said that I didn't get it because I didn't get it.

So why bother? What does it help in terms of review? If, as you say, nothing was implied. 

Now, however, I get it.

What a relief. And I accept the dash of sarcasm in return.


I made my remark to Tom, prefaced with 'seemingly', but you've provided nothing substantial to indicate otherwise, so 'seemingly' is now itself redundant.

Can we move on now? Or would you like to start a poll?



Offline Lon Palmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Writing Doctor (contact by PM)
    • Lon Palmer's blog
Re: 7
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2017, 06:31:49 PM »
I have no idea what you're talking about.

I did not understand the poem, and so I indicated that by saying, "I don't get it."

You've lost me completely.

Yes, by all means, move on.

Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
Re: 7
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2017, 01:26:43 AM »

Then let me clarify it as simply as I can. I characterised your comment as gratuitous (to Tom, not you). You jumped in, disagreeing. I gave my reasons for saying so. You replied but (IMO) without substantiating your disagreement. I said as much, point by point. Now you profess utter bewilderment regarding the aforegoing.
If you can't maintain the logic of a spat, don't start them, like you have now twice in this thread. Move on, Lon. 

  
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 01:36:30 AM by Mark T »

Offline Lon Palmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Writing Doctor (contact by PM)
    • Lon Palmer's blog
Re: 7
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2017, 07:53:06 AM »
Then let me clarify it as simply as I can. I characterised your comment as gratuitous (to Tom, not you). You jumped in, disagreeing.

It doesn't matter who you made the comment TO; but who you made it ABOUT. You didn't really expect me not to respond, did you?

Quote
I gave my reasons for saying so. You replied but (IMO) without substantiating your disagreement. I said as much, point by point. Now you profess utter bewilderment regarding the foregoing.

Only I know for a certainty what I was thinking when I commented. You may propose whatever theories you wish, but none of them have the benefit of direct access to the neurons that produced it.

Gratuitous? For simplicity (and out of laziness), I will use the Google definitions:

Quote
.
uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted.
"gratuitous violence"
synonyms:   unjustified, uncalled for, unwarranted, unprovoked, undue . . .

I don't see how that applies in this case.

I was simply saying that I did not understand the poem. Perhaps I stated it a little too curtly for your ego, but there was absolutely nothing gratuitous about it (according to that definition): It was "justified" by my lack of understanding of the poem, "called for" by virtue of you posting it for critique, and so-on.

Quote
2.
given or done free of charge.

I suppose it WOULD qualify under that definition, but I doubt that's the way you intended it.
 
Quote
If you can't maintain the logic of a spat, don't start them, like you have now twice in this thread. Move on, Lon.  

It's not a spat, not on my part, at least; it's an attempt to clarify my intention - which you're, quite obviously, not buying, so it's a waste of time, and yes, I WILL move on, not because you are telling me to that's not your place but because you are clearly impervious to my simple assurance that no offence was intended.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 07:59:12 AM by Lon Palmer »

Offline duck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
  • The best laid plans of mice and men turn to ...
Re: 7
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2017, 08:25:07 AM »
I would quite gratuitously like to say this exchange has been pretty amusing. The poem was ok but not worth the agro. But I ahve arguments like this with my ex-,, whereby actually no one can remember the real cause of the spat but everyone thinks they do. Mark's knid remarks to 8 are a distinct improvement.

Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
Re: 7
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2017, 12:20:36 PM »

Ha ha Lon, you're funny. I especially like the way you suddenly made the jump from being completely lost to focused analysis. Your remark didn't offend me - why would your lack of comprehension bother me? I was explaining to Tom, who'd insightfully proposed alternative interpretations in his fine review, as to why I'd previously offered a dumbed-down explanation, (for your benefit). It felt like I was being considerate. I didn't have a go at you because of your comment, did I? As a sidebar, it was also partly to hopefully avoid the kind of drawn out hairsplitting pedantic time-wasting twaddle that's became your trademark here, and that we are currently engaged in, not so? Eish. I mean, just look at this gem below:

So, to be clear: I didn't get it, so I said that I didn't get it because I didn't get it.

So why bother? What does it help in terms of review? If, as you say, nothing was implied.

lacking good reason; <<< that's the one you are looking for, see the above ^^^ which you couldn't answer.
[/color]

You may propose whatever theories you wish,


What theories have I proposed? Where are they? I see only verifiable facts. And at what point did I claim to understand the neurons of your brain? Where did that come from? Wait, let me guess, was it the neurons of your brain?

C'mon Lon, try and move on in a way that doesn't involve squeezing in the last word on the spat you claim not to be participating in.  ??? 

What is mildly annoying is that it seemed Tom and I were on the verge of having an interesting discussion before you intervened. I did say that your comment was seemingly gratuitous which is an implied acknowledgement that my perception could possibly be wrong, but you couldn't leave it alone, could you?
I mean, if you had taken my actual words and said: "It was not seemingly gratuitous", can you see how fucking stupid that would have sounded? - but no, let's rather indulge in a little paraphrasing and stir the pot for no good reason.

The end result is that I'm requesting that you don't post any comments on my threads in future, and I'll return the courtesy.

PS. And don't start saying I've called you fucking stupid - it's quite clear from the above that I'm referring to something hypothetical. 
   
 

Offline rxsebud

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: 7
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2017, 12:23:16 PM »

please could i get some feedback - http://mywriterscircle.com/index.php?topic=61736.new#new

thank you :)

Offline Lon Palmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Writing Doctor (contact by PM)
    • Lon Palmer's blog
Re: 7
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2017, 12:38:36 PM »
Ha ha Lon, you're funny. I especially like the way . . .

And you tell ME to let it go?

I kind of skimmed and skipped my way through your latest post, and cannot rouse myself to properly read let alone respond.

Offline Mark T

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4097
Re: 7
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2017, 03:31:16 PM »

Right. Thanks for your feeble response. This is the part that counts.


The end result is that I'm requesting that you don't post any comments on my threads in future, and I'll return the courtesy.