Love Isn't About the Person

[rowens]

Love Isn't About the Person

Personality is the icing on the cake.

It's not particularly good for you,
and nobody really likes it but children.

[wasellajam]

Love Isn't About the Person

Personality is the icing on the cake.

It's not particularly good for you,
and nobody really likes it but children.

Thanks for posting this one, sharp.

Love Isn't About the Person

Personality is the icing on the cake.

It's not particularly good for you,
the first bite's a rush
but its domination's a cheap trick.

[rowens]

Elder Standards


If sexual humor is so immature,
why is it censored and only for mature audiences?

---

The word and is doing double-work.

[wasellajam]

Elder Standards


If sexual humor is so immature,
why is it censored and only for mature audiences?

---

The word and is doing double-work.

In both of your poems? I only see it as plus, in addition. Can you explain it to me on an English Language Poetry For Dummies level?

Love Isn't About the Person

Personality is the icing on the cake.

It's not particularly good for you,
the first bite's a rush
and its domination's a cheap trick.

Does the "and" change mine?

[rowens]

My word is meander. It contains the word and and multiplies it through others.

Do you remember how people used to read holy books like cookbooks for living? Interactive media.
I use movies and songs that way, explicitly. And the more silly and immature sounding the better.
I used Twin Peaks to change my reality. Among other things. Many things.

meander

I like doubling, I've started over and over a book called The Doppelganger. The more I work with material for that book, the less the need to write the book exists.
It's a real hassle. To master something is to master the ability to write about things from the outside looking out: Yes, you read that write.
But I am a man of the seasons, and my long novels are only novel to me in settings where I'm writing them.

Since only adults have the power to censor, only adults are self-censoring.

I'm self-sensing, so there's always another . . .

[wasellajam]

Thanks for the response, rowens.

The more I work with material for that book, the less the need to write the book exists.

I hear you there.

[rowens]

Well, since you're insisting on the topic: I'll go on . . .

The Empire Strikes Back was one of the first movies I ever saw, back in the midnight blue couloir of the early to mid '80s, when I was receiving affective cohesion on the hard rocks of post-postnatal happenstance. The scene above can bring tears to my eyes on an evening like this. What it formulated for and in me was that things need not be as they are; and that Yoda, in this moment of particularity, was not saying that there was another because he was referring Luke's sister or anyone or anything, or to produce a sense of or evoke a further hope, or for any wisdom: He was saying it for no reason, and the scene and the tone and the mood is what it is, with no meaning or reason whatsoever.

[wasellajam]

affective cohesion is a new term for me, thanks for that.

[rowens]

That's a Formula for me. Affect is Red, Cohesion is Blue: Not so much what is True: but what is.
This way, I have all the existential-experiential affect and cohesion, with no need to be troubled over ideation, mine or others.
The Weird Sisters, Ethics-Ecology-Economy, take care of their own in their own ways.
These are strange ways, ways I don't resist or ascertain; but they seem to matter to whether or nor I live or die, and others too. So why churn their fury?



Since we're still on the subject: Consider, in the film scene above, the Blue lighting, and then Yoda speaking the ancient phrase when he sees the light of the Red Room.