poemranker ::We Do Not Write About by faithmairee

DetailsThe poem, its numbers, and the conversation.

Free verse № 140619

We Do Not Write About

by faithmairee

Member since 2004 · Posted 12 Mar 2006 · 32 comments

we do not write about what we do not know the so-called visionaries in a frantic world savoring chances taken mourning lost opportunities advancing with unmatched passion a mere reflection of our double-life we do not write about what we do not know but of the esoteric world inside our heads of displaced bullets or the bothersome sometimes bull-headed black holes in our souls we do not write about what we do not know but of pain and suffering or pleasure (possibly pure ecstasy) and sometimes someone listens to the stirrings of our souls

Rate it

0 is the worst, 10 the best. Pick a number, add a comment if you like, then send it. Keys: 0–9 pick, Enter sends.

mean 6.40 weighted 5.17 rank 5016 views 243 View voting details →

5 votes so far. Yours would make 6.5 votes so far

32 comments

[9] Ranger 12-Mar-06/12:46 PM Reply
This is good - strong and concise. I would change the 'souls' in stanza 2; the rhyme there shifts the focus of the reader (well, of this reader anyway!) and I don't think the repetition works. Other than that, stanza 2 is excellent in my opinion - and so true! You might consider changing 'bothersome' to simply 'bother'...let the 'sometimes' do the all the work there. It won't make perfect grammatical sense (and there are poets here who prefer good grammar and logic) but it would flow a little easier. It's down to your preferences though, of course.
Last two lines are awesome...out of curiosity, 'stirrings' made me also think 'strings' (of our souls) - was that intentional?
[n/a] faithmairee › Ranger 12-Mar-06/12:55 PM Reply
first of all, thanks for your comments...the stirrings was used on purpose...and the magazine that this was published in paid me the most they pay for a single poem to publish it...i dunno, i will think about your suggestions though.
[7] Dovina 13-Mar-06/8:10 AM Reply
I think it would be stronger using "I" instead of "we." Some people do write of what they don't know. To say that you do not, is really the only thing you can say.
[6] zodiac 13-Mar-06/9:07 AM Reply
Stop writing about what you don't know. Or do. I don't care.
[n/a] ALChemy 13-Mar-06/9:15 AM Reply
I don't know what the square root of infinity is, My guess is 183. There, I just wrote about something I don't know. See we do write about what we don't know.
So now you know and knowing is half the battle, YOOOOO Joe!
[6] zodiac › ALChemy 13-Mar-06/9:21 AM Reply
We so do know the square root of infinity.
[n/a] ALChemy › zodiac 13-Mar-06/9:54 AM Reply
"There was a young man from Trinity,
Who solved the square root of infinity.
While counting the digits,
He was seized by the fidgets,
Dropped science, and took up divinity."
[6] zodiac › ALChemy 13-Mar-06/10:04 AM Reply
The square root of infinity is infinity.

But [square root of infinity] < [infinity].
[n/a] ALChemy › zodiac 13-Mar-06/10:17 AM Reply
Oh, see now I totally understand.
[6] zodiac › ALChemy 13-Mar-06/10:21 AM Reply
Don't ask me to explain. Mathematical operations on infinity is about the time my synapses fried in Math School.
[n/a] ALChemy › zodiac 13-Mar-06/10:42 AM Reply
I have an automatic delete button in my brain. If I don't use a certain tid bit of knowledge within a certain amount of time it gets deleted from my memory banks. It's a wonderful thing to have an unclustered mind.
[7] Dovina › zodiac 14-Mar-06/9:31 AM Reply
There are more infinities than one.
[6] zodiac › Dovina 14-Mar-06/9:54 AM Reply
No there aren't. And if there were, yikes, where would we store them?!
[7] Dovina › zodiac 14-Mar-06/10:18 AM Reply
We seem to be stuck with having smaller and bigger infinities. One infinity can be a subset of another. Yet they are nonetheless the same size, or so it seems.
[6] zodiac › Dovina 14-Mar-06/10:23 AM Reply
Yes it can. Imagine a graph on which y = the square root of x. Or if you can't, here's wikipedia's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Square_root.png

Naturally, x > y for all x > 1. Now follow the graph right until you reach infinity. x will still be greater than y, but x will be infinity and y will be infinity.
[7] Dovina › zodiac 14-Mar-06/10:26 AM Reply
I believe this is the first time you have ever agreed with me. You should be ashamed!
[6] zodiac › Dovina 14-Mar-06/10:28 AM Reply
I've agreed with you dozens of times. I'm not, however, agreeing with you now. There is not more than one infinity.
[9] Ranger › zodiac 14-Mar-06/11:01 AM Reply
If by infinity you refer to the universe, then I believe another 'infinity' would make space for itself while not taking up any more space in any other universe.
If you mean infinity in a purely conceptual manner, well I reckon I could get you a decent filing cabinet.
[6] zodiac › Dovina 14-Mar-06/10:06 AM Reply
YOUR GIFT:

- If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and this [sense] alone, I am a deeply religious man.

- I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

Einstein

Today's his birthday
[n/a] ALChemy › zodiac 14-Mar-06/10:44 AM Reply
I think I'll appreciate it more seeing that Einstein's quote pretty much sums it up for me.
[7] Dovina › ALChemy 14-Mar-06/9:39 AM Reply
You wish to awaken moi? I feel so useful and unique. However, the square root of infinity is far away from 183, so far I have no idea how far.
[n/a] ALChemy › Dovina 14-Mar-06/10:39 AM Reply
Let's say you work out that the circumference of a circle is 183. Obviously you used pi(a number with an infinite sequence following the decimal point). This means infinity can exist within 183. A better example: Say mathematicians come up with a distance that is equal to 1/183 the square root of infinity(let's call that distance a Dovina) then a Dovina x 183 = infinity squared. 183 then becomes infinity squared.
You still seem to think infinity is a real number.
[6] zodiac › ALChemy 14-Mar-06/10:47 AM Reply
"infinity can exist within 183". Yes, and even easier than your example. Like this:
183.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000 => infinity

dovina = 1/183 of the square root of infinity
dovina = (square root of infinity)/183
dovina x 183 = (square root of infinity)
(dovina x 183)^2 = infinity

So, 183 does not become infinity squared. (dovina x 183)^4 becomes infinity squared. But that's not the point. The point is 183 becomes the square root of infinity divided by 1 dovina.
[n/a] ALChemy › zodiac 14-Mar-06/11:07 AM Reply
My point is that to say infinity is any further away from 2 then 5 is silly.
[6] zodiac › ALChemy 14-Mar-06/12:36 PM Reply
For ALL x, x-2 > x-5.

Infinity is exactly 3 further away from 2 than 5.
[n/a] ALChemy › zodiac 14-Mar-06/1:42 PM Reply
You're being silly. It's subjective like saying Dovina is the square root of infinity. 3 is only the difference between 2 and 5. Infinity has nothing to do with it. That's like if someone asked you how far away from New York is an undeterined spot and you said "Oh about 300 miles further from the spot then Texas.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/contemplating.html
[n/a] ALChemy › ALChemy 14-Mar-06/1:44 PM Reply
I meant "undetermined".
[6] zodiac › ALChemy 14-Mar-06/2:36 PM Reply
Well, it would be more like asking how much farther the undetermined spot is from NY than Texas when you know it's on a line connecting the two cities and also past Texas, heading away from New York. But not much more. I'm brushing up on number theory and learning all kinds of stuff I never wanted to know again.
[n/a] ALChemy › zodiac 14-Mar-06/2:56 PM Reply
But then part of the spot is being determined as in it must be somewhere along that straight line. You're saying infinity is a number which would place it in line with any string of numbers.
Infinity is not a number but a concept. You might as well say 183 is closer to heaven than 182.
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html
[7] Dovina › ALChemy 14-Mar-06/10:48 AM Reply
Pi has an infinite number of digits to the right of its decimal point, as you say. The number you define as Dovina is infinite in magnitude. Do I think infinity is a real number (in the way that 183 is)? I don't know, it boggles my senses.
[n/a] ALChemy › Dovina 14-Mar-06/10:58 AM Reply
See, I was closer than you thought but you should have realized I was being a smartass when I said 183 to begin with. I certainly realize that you were being a smartass.
[7] Dovina › ALChemy 14-Mar-06/11:03 AM Reply
Smartass!