State of the World Address.

The last two lines of every verse are just exquisite.

Perpetualburn wrote:

During Shakespeare’s time, the mocking and lack of respect for women was much more prevalent and the qualities that women were supposed to have during his time were those of a ‘delicate flower’.

Misogyny is nowhere near as prevalent in our time than it was in Shakespeare’s or Nietzsche’s, each had it’s own degree of.

I do not adore Shakespeare or his work. Too flowery, sing song, the poem below has truth in it.

An Almost Made Up Poem - Poem by Charles Bukowski

I see you drinking at a fountain with tiny
blue hands, no, your hands are not tiny
they are small, and the fountain is in France
where you wrote me that last letter and
I answered and never heard from you again.
you used to write insane poems about
ANGELS AND GOD, all in upper case, and you
knew famous artists and most of them
were your lovers, and I wrote back, it’ all right,
go ahead, enter their lives, I’ not jealous
because we’ never met. we got close once in
New Orleans, one half block, but never met, never
touched. so you went with the famous and wrote
about the famous, and, of course, what you found out
is that the famous are worried about
their fame –– not the beautiful young girl in bed
with them, who gives them that, and then awakens
in the morning to write upper case poems about
ANGELS AND GOD. we know God is dead, they’ told
us, but listening to you I wasn’ sure. maybe
it was the upper case. you were one of the
best female poets and I told the publishers,
editors, “ her, print her, she’ mad but she’
magic. there’ no lie in her fire.” I loved you
like a man loves a woman he never touches, only
writes to, keeps little photographs of. I would have
loved you more if I had sat in a small room rolling a
cigarette and listened to you piss in the bathroom,
but that didn’ happen. your letters got sadder.
your lovers betrayed you. kid, I wrote back, all
lovers betray. it didn’ help. you said
you had a crying bench and it was by a bridge and
the bridge was over a river and you sat on the crying
bench every night and wept for the lovers who had
hurt and forgotten you. I wrote back but never
heard again. a friend wrote me of your suicide
3 or 4 months after it happened. if I had met you
I would probably have been unfair to you or you
to me. it was best like this.

You are a hardcore romanticist PB.

Not his women with their steel bosoms.

Women will always find some “misogyny” in man’s image of her, no matter how positive or negative it is. If it’s too positive, then it’s not “real” enough, it’s not how she really is… But if it’s too real…well, then all hell breaks loose…A woman can never get her makeup just right. She watches him like a sentinel to see how well he straddles the fence when the subject of appearances comes up.

Btw, if Shakespeare and Nietzsche are misogynists, then things don’t bode well for the rest of the male population, who will never be so gentle with women.

Ejaculatory prose does not a poem make.

[/quote]

[/quote]
The irony is that Shakespeare is lost on snobs, and apparently Charkles Bukowski too. The guy who prides himself on his down to earth style I guess can’t appreciate heartfelt sincerity when he hears it.

Shakespeare, read well, is a first rate Dionysiac. What he weaves into his sentences is pure eros, sap of life.
Ive always had something with Macbeth as a boy, seemed to describe the soul of what I always saw around me.

PB wrote

:laughing:

A tragedy or not a tragedy.

No you read Shakespeare only as in which character is your souls worst sin.

See it in context of depth psychology which popular success like this always is born of; the psyche of the middle ages in England was a bit more hardy than to seek what we seek in poetry, it wanted the absolute worst, and laugh about it. Their sins exposed, confessed.

Most modern actors shroud this barbarism, which it essentially is, and is meant is, in a flowery delivery.

I had to put this in your thread, Sauwelios. Something that happened today.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJCKQllyMIQ[/youtube]

Inspiring!

Nietzschean’s have nutters in white robes too, oh my! #-o

Retard… this is from Zarathustra.

The white robe isn’t a reference to Jesus, but to purity, it is a theatrical means, you savage. The performance of the actor is truly legitimate, especially the part about the Last Man. Which is why people wont like it if they are Last Men!
The most thrilling part of the piece I found where the audience responds - it made me scream out loud in awe, or a sentiment of surprise Ive never felt before as I watched it back, Ive never had that before in my life. I am truly a Nietzschean in my fucking bones. And this piece is the world is a nutshell.

Im going to go ahead and say that this is the best, bravest and most badass piece of theater Ive ever seen performed.
Just picking this monologue, and actually managing to convey the contempt for the Last Man, what a fucking king this guy is.

A Nietzschean “Creation myth” might be: existence began with an act of divine Destruction.

::

The Word, seen in its true Sense, is itself Force, itself Deed. For the Word is a Verb rather than a Noun–a Name for a Work, a Doing–an Act… Must a Writer not be an Actor, a Pretender? Unto the Real World Stage, then!

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE. AND LOWER CASE, WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF PUNCTUATION… BUT NO, I WILL NOT PRETEND THAT I’M ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DO WITHOUT PUNCTUATION, EVEN AS I WON’T PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO WRITE LATIN OR GREEK. THIS NIETZSCHEAN AGE IS TOO MUCH STILL A BEGINNING. LIKE MY SELF-IMPOSED EXILE FROM THE WORLD OF TONAL MUSIC–AND MY TONAL FAVOURITES WERE ALREADY AN ODD SELECTION!–, THIS WAY OF WRITING IS AN EXPERIENT IN TAKING THINGS COLD AND SLOW.*

  • 'TIS A SUBTLETY THAT I’VE BEEN WRITING IN ALL-CAPS FOR YEARS: NAMELY, WHEN WRITING AS OPPOSED TO TYPING–LITERALLY WRITING! MY HANDWRITING WAS JUST TOO BAD. KALLIGRAPHY BE DAMED!–SOMETHING FOR DAMES…

IF MY CAPITALIZATION MAKES ME “SOUND” LIKE I’M SHOUTING, MY “BORINGNESS” MAY SERVE TO COMPENSATE. MY PASSION DEMANDS IT. BUT I’VE BEEN THINKING THIS MAY NOW FINALLY IMPEL ME TO EMBRACE THE ILLUSION OF NEGATIVITY: DARKNESS, DEATH, UGLINESS… I’VE ALWAYS DRAWN THE LINE AT UGLINESS, AND THEREBY AT DEATH. TO ME, DARKNESS, DEEPEST BLACKNESS ITSELF WAS A MOST ATTRACTIVE FORCE EVEN IN THE MOST BEATIFUL COLOUR SPECTRUM. THE SHADOW OF NIGHT… [TYPO IN “BEAUTIFUL” NOTED.]

I JUST INDULGED–WELL, ALMOST COMPLETELY INDULGED–IN A POEM ON THE UNDERGROUND WALL. BUT THOUGH I MAY FLY STRAIGHT BACK TO MODAL MUSIC, I MAY NOT DENY SUCH ROOTS. EVEN NOW I’M LISTENING TO UMA MOHAN, WHOSE WAS THE FIRST MODAL MUSIC THAT MIGHT HAVE MOVED ME TO TEARS. I WILL NOT DENY THAT PASSION, BUT NOR THAT SUCH PASSION IS FOR RELATIVE BEGINNERS. IN THE SENSE OF A HIGH CULTURE ETC…

I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, BUT THERE’S A PASSION THAT HAS LIVED ALL THE PASSION OF DEATH AND CAN ONLY LIVE THE PASSION FOR THE DEATH OF THAT PASSION NOW… AND WHEN THIS PASSION HAS DIED… ONE WITH RELIEF–THOUGH WITHOUT BREATHING A SIGH–WELCOMES SUBTLETY OF PASSION, THE SEEMING ABSENCE OF PASSION… SEEMING ONLY TO COARSE EARS, TO AMBITIOUS HEARTS. BUT IT’S ONLY WHEN THE FOOL PERSISTS IN HIS FOLLY THAT HE BECOMES WISE; AND IT’S ONLY WHEN HE’S THOUGHT WISE THAT HE BECOMES A ROD… BUT THIS FOOL, THIS ONCE PURE FOOL WHO WENT THE PATH OF THE MAGUS WILL NOW BE A ROD BY EMBRACING EVERYTHING THOUGHT NEGATIVE. HE WILL INSIST ON BEING AN IPSISSIMUS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ONLY BEING A MAGUS TO THE IPSISSIMOSITY CALLED NIETZSCHE. IT’S A PREJUDICE THAT ALL THE NEGATIVE VALUES BELONG TOGETHER, BY THE WAY. EVIL AND BAD ARE NOT THE SAME. BUT POPULARLY, THEY ARE THOUGHT THE SAME: THEREFORE I MUST ALSO EMBRACE THE BAD. YES, “MUST”! AND NOT JUST “WILL”. NEED, THE NEGATIVE COUNTERPART OF WILL, MUST ALSO BE WILLED. THAT THE WORLD IS A COLD AND EMPTY PLACE: THAT ABSENCE IS THE GREAT INSPIRER OF THE GREAT FIRE THAT IS THIS UNIVERSE. FEAR: THAT IS THE AWFUL FEELING INFLAMING ALL OF US. THE HORROR OF THE REAL. BUT WAIT, DIDN’T I JUST DESCRIBE THE REAL AS THAT GREAT FIRE, AS OPPOSED TO THE COLD DARKNESS WHICH IS IDEAL [AN IDEA]? HELL IS OTHER BEINGS. IT ONLY BECOMES HEAVENLY WHEN YOU EMBRACE YOURSELF AS ONE OF THESE HELL-BEINGS. THEN YOU ARE INDEED ONE OF THE SATYRS.

I think you need to go much further with this transfiguration of writing, namely also becoming entirely metrical in the classical sense.

Doesn’t that only go for poetry, though? I mean, I’m always very aware of the rhythm of what I write, but that doesn’t require meter.

Perhaps then it is the small connecting words that we have and the Romans did not.
No I have it. Let me make a suggestion about how to pull this off without punctuation.

AT THIS POINT I CAN NO LONGER STAND MY CAPITALS AMONG A LOWER CASE AUDIENCE
AND LOWER CASE WITH ALL THE SUBTLETY OF PUNCTUATION
BUT NO I WILL NOT PRETEND THAT I’M ADVANCED ENOUGH TO DO WITHOUT PUNCTUATION
EVEN AS I WON’T PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO WRITE LATIN OR GREEK
THIS NIETZSCHEAN AGE IS TOO MUCH STILL A BEGINNING
LIKE MY SELF-IMPOSED EXILE FROM THE WORLD OF TONAL MUSIC
AND MY TONAL FAVOURITES WERE ALREADY AN ODD SELECTION
THIS WAY OF WRITING IS AN EXPERIENT IN TAKING THINGS COLD AND SLOW

this works perfectly well, reads better than a large block with ongoing text in caps with punctuation, which quite simply is too much information per square centimeter for my brain to find pleasant reading.

Your rhythms are indeed the ground, and I say just break up all phrases and let them stand alone.
This way, it breathes like rhetoric wants to breathe. All phrases can be called out in a loud voice over a big square.

HAND WRITING IS RUNIC
A MAN THAT WRITES WITHOUT COCKSLEGS IS NO ROMAN

THREE WOLVES GREET YOU

FC’s changes are huge improvements. Go with his advice.

FCS CHANGES ARE HUGE
IMPROVEMENTS GO
WITH HIS ADVICE

BASICALLY I DO NOT
RECOGNIZE THE
DISTINCTION

BETWEEN POETRY AND PROSE

ONLY BETWEEN FORM AND FORM DO I SEE DISTINCTION
RHYME OR NO RHYME
IS OF NO CONCERN

WORD FOR WORD EACH WORD
IS METAPHOR

Fixed Cross

I have said book, but found it to be of an arcane language and generally without substance or root at a fundamental level ~ or nonsense generally. I might have it all wrong, but even if Nietzsche was a genius he failed to get that across. Not to mention that his philosophy is basically modern capitalism in a nutshell – which sucks really badly. Maybe I got it wrong, but historical and contemporary examples haven’t made a very good case for its missed eloquence, nor et al. I do think Hitler was a Nietzschean, and the jews aren’t far behind him, if we consider how they think they are better than everyone else, and are generally ruling the world, and promoting his ‘stronger than’ philosophy.

Sauwelios

Given that there was some manner of perfection to begin with, or a oneness, then to make anything from that could be seen as an act of destruction yes. However, that oneness contains its seed, no? Ergo the duality is inherent within the fundamental nature of existence. There is no perfect God or perfection et al, then if everything is imperfect at root then nothing was destroyed.

Dear lord don’t you see what this means!? Just like Nietzsche viewed others as degenerate intellectually, you are doing the same, dividing the world into the worthy and the unworthy. Did you create yourself and make yourself more intelligent? No, you make an assumption that others are failing, and I suspect you believe there is a ‘divine integer’ seed, or ‘value’ which denotes whether or not some are low and some are high case as you put it. So let me get this right; you think that a divinity or you yourself decided that you or your ‘value’ is or should be better than others. Then in contrast some people would have shit intellects and shit lives, because they must suck.

I don’t get it!? In this fucking shit world where people have to suffer and die, you think a supreme intellect decided to make things worse for some than others. If I got the whole thing wrong please educate me, because as I see it, it is Nietzsche and Nietzschean’s who require an education.