night is willing

Language tips the iceberg that is thought. If verse is to claim a similar relation to language, all sorts of decisions have to be made. Incisive decisions to cut all that ties words – and thus thought – to oppression. Otherwise, there is little point in words.

Agree the night is
      willing to knife
  the wind, to

Sleep in the tent of
      your erstwhile
  friend, this

Knife is wet with doubt
      and much thought
  passes by, -

4 comments on “night is willing

  1. Lola Elvy says:

    I think a discussion here concerning the *point* of words would be very extensive, indeed. Lengthy arguments to be made, I’m sure.

    • huzaifazoom says:

      True. A slight explanation of the short intro is perhaps due. What I didn’t elaborate is the fact (according to research in linguistics) that the bulk of language is about thought and not communication. Couple this counter-intuitive fact with the growing realization that language is being stolen by structures of dominance/oppression, then words, and by association word-smiths, start taking on a tremendous responsibility. My post, https://huzaifazoom.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/presentism-and-the-poets-rage/ talks a bit more on how the theft of language takes place 🙂

      • Lola Elvy says:

        I get the feeling that you have much more to say on this topic. Your clarification is, to be honest, not what I expected, but perhaps I was simply projecting my own opinions regarding language, communication, and, in turn, words onto your introducing paragraph. I have a perhaps conflicting perspective. I myself have always had a fondness for words, but I find I am more and more disinclined to appreciate they’re confines; they often do not suffice to convey what I intend them to, and sometimes (on a day when I am particularly discouraged) it seems that they are useful primarily for limiting that which they cannot explain. On the other hand, one could also easily say that the very purpose of words is to communicate that which cannot be otherwise communicated, and, therefor, their definitions are determined by their users, the communicators, and, as such, they mean as little or as much as we intend them to. I see this latter argument to be valid, and I have thought of it myself on several occasions; however, I am still more inclined to follow the former, and often regret that the vocabulary I have available does not envelop my thoughts or intentions.

        What you say is also interesting; it seems to be on a more concrete, literal level as to the development of language itself. I will have to read your linked post (I have to sign off for now, but I will read later, when I am back online, with more time), and reply to you further.

        I find these discussions to be very interesting indeed.

      • huzaifazoom says:

        It is a pleasure indeed to discuss in complementary prose what we touch upon in verse. Before I respond, I await your comments on the other post as the two are quite closely linked in my scheme of things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s