Synergetic Existentialism (english poetry)

gwggg21f1

Sygernetici 2


I usually stray from posting the Sinelos (Surrealist) variant of my poetry. It is messy, highly mutated and usually a product of my Silence exercises. The more distant I become from reality, the higher the abstractions, and messier the perceptions radiating outwards. But now, people who read my works are increasingly more diverse, and I’d hope at least one person connects more heavily with my surreal side, in stead of my melodic, modernistic and lyrical composing methods.

And if not, y’know, I can dwell inside the bliss of trial.

Blessings of Akatosh upon ye!


JOHNNY

Hoje sou tudo no nada que sou, amanhã serei outro.

23 thoughts on “Synergetic Existentialism (english poetry)

    • Oh, Irina, nem sabes o quanto isso retumba no meu coração fraquinho. Muito obrigado, e um kow-tow virtual. Também ando a escrever muita coisa portuguesa que me abstenho de publicar… Mas pronto, outros tostões, artistas nunca estão contentes.
      Outra vez, muito obrigado, és um anjo.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Feel as if this is your Forum; every reply within my reach, shall promptly reach you. I’m often attentive of who silently appreciates my work, and I know you do, and it means a lot to me regardless. But you truly should communicate freely, even when my poems are awful, you can just comment they are awful, and we can grow together.
      Plus, you’re awesome, and I heavily appreciate your feedback of any nature.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Okay 🙂 I thoroughly enjoyed this beautiful poem. One thing I didn’t quite understand though was your choice for pathos. I was wondering what your reason for choosing Dionysus was. Maybe I’m reading his stories in the wrong light.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh, no, I didn’t choose! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
        Apollonian and Dionysian are ancient greek concepts. Think of Taoist balance, but less broad are more dramatic. Apollo represented reason and intelligence, thus, ethos, since Apollo carried was patron of thought, ideals and epistemology. Dionysus represents chaos and blissfulness, thus, pathos, an appeal to raw emotion, senseless and volatile. These two complementary parts are, according to Greeks, what shapes a man: what he believes, and what he feels.
        That sensation of human duality is meant to tie into the core-front of the poem: seeking wisdom while maintaining levity, something utterly unreachable, which makes it all the more poetic.
        And thank you!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Thanks for the explanation 🙂 Nietzsche should have used the Roman counter parts to illustrate this sort of duality, I think/feel, Bacchus(the noise maker) rather than Dionysus, but those old texts can be interpreted in many different ways I guess.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bah, not nitpicking at all! It’s only natural to question things. Dionysus is a very enchanting figure, so I don’t blame you. I’m usually more fond of smaller mythological characters, like Daphne or Psyche. Those really get my brain working.
        Anyways, happy to help!

        Liked by 1 person

      • I was musing on Daphne’s story a few days ago, of how ivy wreaths changed to laurel 🙂 There is some sort of synergy between the stories of Apollo and Dionysus. I just haven’t been able to put my finger on it yet.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Their synergetic nature is of simple completude. They are both extremes of a singular ouroboros, which is a self-annulling concept, unless you expand it onto the uneven fields of Mythology and overall absolute. Although Greek figures are gifted with antro-elements, their proto conceptions are still surreal, they are still Gods, not actual people. I believe sometimes we forget that, since they seem so human.
        Apollo and Dionysus, thus, represented an underlining formality of true interactions. They were parsonages of the truest, most tangible human facets, which inherently made them connective, despite the dichotomy.
        But Gods are very static constructions, they base their existence on such statics; people are unavoidably more volatile. Once we import Apollo and Dion’ into our perceptions, they gain less godly bevels.
        There is also a big discussion surrounding the worship of them both, as they were the two most celebrated Gods of the pantheon; especially Apollo, as Greece was a knowledge-driven society; and Dion’ for the commoners, whose access to that wisdom was often barred, seeking refuge on the frugality and levity of a chaotic life, and thus, spawning Dion’s greatest symbolical attributes: Theater, Wine and Mayhem.

        Quite fascinating, eh? But I’m certainly not the best at explaining these things, as my knowledge of them is very superficial. I’ve only read some ancient texts and my Ancient Greek is still very primitive, stopping my access into more substantial scriptures like the surviving lyrics of the Serapeum, where Ptolemaic Greeks documented evolutions with lesser biases, since they did it from afar.

        Liked by 2 people

      • But you explain them very concisely and clearly nonetheless, for which I am grateful. I confess, most of my knowledge comes from Hesiod… You’ve given me a good reason to delve into the labyrinth of Alexandria now 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well, your basis should always be Homeric texts. Homer was the central figure of Greek culture (regardless of speculation about being a singular poetical genius or a multitude of contributors), most of Greece, despite their chaotic nature towards each-other, accepted gladly that Homer was the creator of Greece as a whole. He was the Father, the ultimate creator, since he alone created culture itself — and even religion itself.
        The Serapeum was based mostly as an Institution to gather Homer’s various epic works, and build a Canon after them. The Libraries themselves were merely repositories of various Greek lyrics, all of them post-Homeric.
        Hesiod, despite living around the same period has Homer, already displayed purely Homeric constructions — the most notable: he used the dialect Homer himself created, in writing his own lyrics.
        So, first Homer, then Hesiod and finally, the Serapeum accounts of both, along with other notable lyricists like Sappho, Anacreon, Simonides, Ibycus, and all the other Mellics, who played a crucial part in extending the Homeric Mythos.
        Alexandria, or the little of it we still have today, was instrumental in guaranteeing the survival of these figures. Not accounting for those which they weren’t able to safe-keep. The only undoubtable fact is that Homer was the most important and most central figure of Greek Mythos.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I have never been able to read Homer unabridged 😦 i really should try again one of these days. Maybe his genius is lost in translation, or I’m suffering from some kind of bias. I started with the Indian and then the Near Eastern myths before heading into the Greek, so that may have clouded my judgement a little. I wish there were more pre-Mycene texts that survived intact and decipherable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oh, Homer mostly accounts, he didn’t have much of a theatrical flair. Many revered authors of yore were mostly incredibly intelligent, as opposed to just talented, or talented at all.
        Post-Homeric lyrics are much more enchanting and melodic, with more raw emotion; but they were only able to do that because of Homers groundwork, within the worlds Homer created and described. He wasn’t so much an Artist as we perceive them, but rather, a walking stick of pure knowledge and wisdom; one who observes, digests and analyses better than we all do, shares his contribution, so we many spend less time trying to understand, and more time developing emotions for what we do understand.
        It’s an effort to read him, but one which, if you as passionate about Mythos as I am, will undoubtedly pay-off once you transition to more complex Greek works, even those of Hermeticism and General Philosophy. Like Plato said “Homer teaches Greece”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ah, you make my reading list grow ever larger with each comment 😛 after such a glowing tribute I would be remiss if I didn’t dive head first into this Homeric world of heroic virtues. Thank you, this has been an enlightening conversation 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  1. I do love these surreal exercises as well. Imagery overload while I read 🙂
    As for the Greek conversation above I would agree with your assessment on what to read and the order. I definitely liked Hesiod’s works. Some of it was a slog going through the names though. I somewhat felt (in Work and Days) there was some moments where it very much reminded me of the Havamal from the Poetic Edda. But it has been a long time since I have read any of these works lol

    Liked by 2 people

    • Agreed; again, that’s why I feel like these elder authors were mostly distinguished by their wisdom and raw knowledge, in stead of mere beauty or enchantment. They could transmute complex subjects into language everyone could understand, but that leaves little space for emotional draws. (even though they do exist)

      Havamal of Edda is another fine example; Although highly distinctive in many sides, all Grand Poetics have an underlining similarity, because their truth of existence stems from the same necessity to unify concepts and generate a culture of sufficient understandings.

      Sometimes, I feel like these guys still don’t get the credit they deserve.
      (And thank you so much, the compliment is much appreciated)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Ok. I read it about 11 times. It feels like sitting in an old train while reading it. The jerks go front and back front and back. Yet we seem to be advancing towards a destination.
    I read an Aristophanes play long back, well half read it. The setting has pathos of Baccus and the huge shadow of sun gods persona. Your setting reminded me.
    I could not understand the poem but a hint of tiresian contrast together making a legend. The two poles of a magnet a magnet make.
    Beautiful.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Aristophanes would have known Dion, but not Baccus. Aristophanes was such a firm believer in Dion’s pathos way of life, that he spent his lifetime refining an Art accredited to such Olympian God, and often ridiculed great figures of “ethos”, like Socrates and Ceon. Somehow, I feel like his true allegiance was to ethos, since he was a very bright man who manipulated the ropes with mastery, but his performative relation with Dion’s chaos and satire proved very convenient, and he often out-manoeuvred all of his opposers.
      The poem, however, doesn’t touch a glimpse of those complexities. It was a composition designed to bring comfort towards general non-understanding; as in, I’m not all that smart, but I am as smart as I can be; I still battle that little parasitical sensation that I can be even more, and I’m starting to feel like I don’t need to.
      But surreals are always a bit hard to understand, it’s their nature, there are many I still can’t understand and probably won’t ever understand.

      Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.