A Lament for God

[MorpheusSandman]

The moan was meant and immanent
A lament for the grizzled grievous
God who sees humanity nascent
Like the lily and the lotus
But the onus is on the stormy
Weather, as water drip drops down the fig
Could you blindly see and blithely
Feel for a God that did renege?

[cogs]

yes! love creation poetry. the spirit of this poem feels rebellious, which got us into 'nascent' trouble.

[tailor STATELY]

☼ Thank you for sharing your thoughts in such a poetic form.

☼ LOL, as a person of faith I would replace the word 'nascent' with 'nescient' if it were my poem (it serves you well as is); which brought to mind a short piece I penned a while back, (one that I need to dust off and re-work), that serves as a contrast to your poem:

Affront

Nescient offspring...
children of the moment
thinking but of themselves
complacency obviates
His great love

3-8-2004
© tailor STATELY

☼ The contrast is in my sentiment and lack of style, (obviously).

☼ I find the imagery of the lotus and the lily to be in opposition to the sentiment you write for some reason; I'll have to pursue this line of thought later - maybe it's a zen thing?.

☼ Me, I am truly grateful for a Heavenly Father who does not renege; a God I do not follow blindly albeit completely.

☼ My apology if one is offended. It is my intention only to share my thoughts and look forward to the comments of others in like fashion.

Humbly,
tailor STATELY

[MorpheusSandman]

Thanks to cogs and tailor.

@tailor: If I had known the word nescient (my somewhat limited vocabulary is an admitted weakness) I would've loved to actually pair that with nascent given how much I play with repeating phonetics it would've worked great. This piece was actually written for the Boutes-Rimes thread so someone else gave me the word lily and I used lotus because of the aliteration and I liked how it connected with the "fig" as plant imagery in the next line; I don't really claim to understand what the hell I meant.

As I've stated elsewhere I'm an atheist-agnostic who's certainly open to the possibility there's a God but simply can't believe because of a great lack of substantial evidence.

[Bar22do]

The moan was meant and immanent
A lament for the grizzled grievous
God who sees humanity nascent
Like the lily and the lotus
But the onus is on the stormy
Weather, as water drip drops down the fig
Could you blindly see and blithely
Feel for a God that did renege?

Impossible to answer your question, though of course you do not wait for any answer. It's an experience of Words (not words) encounter, one that makes a powerful momentum. It echoes to me my own brief O Man, He Sighed, that supposes possibly the same irrevocable withdrawal, but shows it from the opposite perspective...

[tailor STATELY]

@tailor:

As I've stated elsewhere I'm an atheist-agnostic who's certainly open to the possibility there's a God but simply can't believe because of a great lack of substantial evidence.
No problem. I do my best to respect all faiths and those of no faith (ambivalent or not). Your muse elicits value through you, through your poetry, to enlighten those of faith and non-faith alike. The path that each reader takes when journeying a poet's words is different in flavour and colour and hue and clime and space and philosophy and, yes, faith. Where one sees the cherry, mindful of its pit, another remembers the blossoms on the tree ;)

Perhaps I should have explained further.

Part of my response was in answer to your (rhetorical?) question "Could you blindly see and blithely Feel for a God that did renege?"; a question that does not enter into the summum bonum equation of my faith. Not to be overly obtuse but to me it would be like dividing by zero, mathematically undefinable, to characterize God as anything but 'all knowing/powerful/perfect/loving/unreneginginging' (for lack of a better word).




@tailor:... someone else gave me the word lily and I used lotus because of the aliteration and I liked how it connected with the "fig" as plant imagery in the next line; I don't really claim to understand what the hell I meant.

Ah. As you led me down this garden path I tried to bend my mind around the imagery and meaning of the lily and lotus. When I came to a fork in the path I did take the middle path of the two offered and wiki'd 'zen' for illumination and found this gem:
The Flower Sermon

The lotus flower, the species of flower said to have been used during the Flower Sermon.

The origins of Zen Buddhism are ascribed to the Flower Sermon, the earliest source for which comes from the 14th century. It is said that Gautama Buddha gathered his disciples one day for a dharma talk. When they gathered together, the Buddha was completely silent and some speculated that perhaps the Buddha was tired or ill. The Buddha silently held up and twirled a flower and twinkled his eyes; several of his disciples tried to interpret what this meant, though none of them were correct. One of the Buddha's disciples, Mahākāśyapa, silently gazed at the flower and broke into a broad smile. The Buddha then acknowledged Mahākāśyapa's insight by saying the following:

I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle dharma gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.

Thus, through Zen there developed a way which concentrated on direct experience rather than on rational creeds or revealed scriptures. Wisdom was passed, not through words, but through a lineage of one-to-one direct transmission of thought from teacher to student. It is commonly taught that such lineage continued all the way from the Buddha's time to the present. Historically, this claim is disputed, due to lack of evidence to support it.
I found this interesting because of the poetic value of the story; and the similarity, and yet contrast, to the doctrine my faith has for one to meditate upon the word of God to receive enlightenment from God in the form of personal revelation through a still, quiet voice.

[firefangled]

I like the rhymes in this. They suit it well.

[PrinceMyshkin]

☼ My apology if one is offended. It is my intention only to share my thoughts and look forward to the comments of others in like fashion.

Humbly,
tailor STATELY

One may disagree whole-heartedly with your faith without being in the least offended by your courteous, respectful way of attesting to it. I'd much rather have that any day than a rude, aggressive assertion by someone who happens to share my point of view, which I define as lapsed atheism, which is however still a long way from theism.

[Virgil]

The moan was meant and immanent
A lament for the grizzled grievous
God who sees humanity nascent
Like the lily and the lotus
But the onus is on the stormy
Weather, as water drip drops down the fig
Could you blindly see and blithely
Feel for a God that did renege?

I like it Morpheus, particularly the sound effects. I really like the way you end it with "renege." The vowel sound connects it to "immanent" and "nascent" and that hard "g" connects it with "fig" and I suppose the "g" alliteration at the beginning. It might flow better if you dropped the "but" at the beginning of line five. To my ear it flows better with a sentence stop at "lotus" and then a new sentence with "The onus is..." Also I think "grizzled" as a characteristic of God is kind of cliche, but that's maybe what you intended. Nice little poem. :)

[PrinceMyshkin]

I like it Morpheus, particularly the sound effects. I really like the way you end it with "renege." The vowel sound connects it to "immanent" and "nascent" and that hard "g" connects it with "fig" and I suppose the "g" alliteration at the beginning. It might flow better if you dropped the "but" at the beginning of line five. To my ear it flows better with a sentence stop at "lotus" and then a new sentence with "The onus is..." Also I think "grizzled" as a characteristic of God is kind of cliche, but that's maybe what you intended. Nice little poem. :)

i want to make as sturdy a defence as I can for the retention of the "But," first as the enunciation of the response to the first half of the poem and secondly because it seems to me have a rhythmic role to play.

[qimissung]

Very nice. I love the aching way it asks that eternal question of God, "Why?" Just that, only that. The last line is especially poignant.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxx

[Virgil]

i want to make as sturdy a defence as I can for the retention of the "But," first as the enunciation of the response to the first half of the poem and secondly because it seems to me have a rhythmic role to play.

I could go either way. It's how you hear the rhythm. I think if the "but" weren't there it could be implied. At least I think so, but certainly it's got a stronger presence with it in. "But" is the most powerful word in the English language, and I usually do have it prominantly placed, so I guess my advice breaks one of my own tendencies. :lol:

[PrinceMyshkin]

I could go either way. It's how you hear the rhythm. I think if the "but" weren't there it could be implied. At least I think so, but certainly it's got a stronger presence with it in. "But" is the most powerful word in the English language, and I usually do have it prominantly placed, so I guess my advice breaks one of my own tendencies. :lol:

But (which used to be disallowed at the beginning of a sentence) isn't it refreshing, now and then, to go against one of one's own tendencies?

[Virgil]

But (which used to be disallowed at the beginning of a sentence) isn't it refreshing, now and then, to go against one of one's own tendencies?

Yes. :)

[~Sophia~]

Very nice. I love the aching way it asks that eternal question of God, "Why?" Just that, only that. The last line is especially poignant.

There are so many reasons to ask "Why?". Good poem Morph! Sometimes I think (I hope) even God questions the wisdom of leaving us to our own devices.

As for the "but" discussion... I've always found it fascinating that replacing the word "but" with the word "and" doesn't really change the meaning and, seems to strengthen it in a subtle way.

[Buh4Bee]

I usually true to stay away from poems that question God, but I thought I'd reply for the sake that I like what you are asking. I find that whether people believe or not, that they ask where is God when bad things happen. I, who have faith, in my darker moments, will think this way. In my more enlightened moments of faith, I'd argue against such questions.

I admire your ability to rhyme.

[MorpheusSandman]

Wow! Such an overwhelming amount of comments. As always I'm surprised at which of my little pieces generate so much attention! A thanks to Bar, fire, qimi, Jermac, Sophia and Jersea for their comments (I hope I didn't forget anyone!).

@Virgil & Prince: As always I appreciate constructive criticism the most. Whether I agree or not it always forces me to think about whether something works or not and, more importantly, why it works or doesn't. Here I'm torn on the "but" issue. It's something I didn't even think about when I wrote it but now that I am I think both of you have made good cases for and against it. For now, I think I'm slightly on the "for it" side because even though it does disrupt the rhythm I think with that being the "volta" of the piece it's rather acceptable. In fact, this is a technique I've found quite useful, ie, interrupting the rhythmic flow at the turning point of a poem. It disrupts the flow of the reader and forces them to take extra notice instead of just flowing along with the piece.

@tailor: A sincere thanks for your passionate yet endlessly respectful interpretation of the piece through your own faith. If nothing else art should be able to bring people from all different faiths, beliefs, culture, etc. together to discuss how those difference influence their views. I'm honored you've given as much time to a piece that came from a very different perspective of your own. While I began this piece as more or less a poetic exercise I think it slowly took shape when "God" entered the piece early on and suddenly I saw it as being a kind of abstract existential piece about feeling alone or separated from one's beliefs or God; something I experienced very strongly over a decade ago. It's something one doesn't forget and I imagine will find its way into many more of my pieces.

Again, a great thanks for the time and thought you put into interpreting my little poem. :)

[PrinceMyshkin]

@Virgil & Prince: As always I appreciate constructive criticism the most. Whether I agree or not it always forces me to think about whether something works or not and, more importantly, why it works or doesn't. Here I'm torn on the "but" issue. It's something I didn't even think about when I wrote it but now that I am I think both of you have made good cases for and against it. For now, I think I'm slightly on the "for it" side because even though it does disrupt the rhythm I think with that being the "volta" of the piece it's rather acceptable. In fact, this is a technique I've found quite useful, ie, interrupting the rhythmic flow at the turning point of a poem. It disrupts the flow of the reader and forces them to take extra notice instead of just flowing along with the piece.


The "volta" is precisely what I like about the "But" placed where it is. We have a seamless half of the argument in the first lines, implicitly promising more of the same irrefutable exposition, then a jolt, telling us in a sense that the rhythm hasn't mastered the poem...

I sent a poem I'd written for children to my rather precocious 7-year old grand-daughter and got this back in return:


I like your rhyming skills. It's like things are driving some where, the car or truck or whatever they're driving in, it's so bumpy. I know you'd expect me to say smooth, but I'll say bumpy. Because if it's smooth, it'd just be 'la, la, la,' and more la la las. I gotta say it's truthfully so good.

[MorpheusSandman]

Your granddaughter seems like a doll, Prince. Too bad more children couldn't be that perceptive about poetry.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Your granddaughter seems like a doll, Prince. Too bad more children couldn't be that perceptive about poetry.

Thanks, Morph. Maybe I haven't had enough experience with 7-year olds, but the poise of her response astonished (and delighted) me.

But then, I'd earlier had her mother's account of a conversation Sapphire had with a (male) friend of hers both of whom were about 4:

Sapphire (addressing her friend across the table): Let's have a conversation.

Her friend: What should we talk about? (Pause) I know! Let's talk about airplanes!

Sapphire: No, let's talk about you and me.