Paradoxy's trial

Love increases in pure simplicity,
then dreams of murder and complicity.
Jung explains my guilt as balanced psychcal--
thoughts, violations but archetypal.
And so this fool experiment I tried.
To me myself I kind of . . . no, I lied.
Stop night wakings and marish-driven screams.
Cease they did by thinking ill, so it seems.
Does love then manifest from harm or good?
We such stuff as dreams are made of, or should.
So behold I evil in my waking;
I thus manage this day's deeds, though quaking.
If dreams are countered in my daylight state,
Goodness still the burden is 'gainst this weight.

Big waiting room

What do you do when you must sit and wait?

Is it boring? and do you look about?

I see it as an opening, a gate

through which I go and choose a carefree route

to imagined or remembered places,

or to events in offing--to prepare.

I never see exactly, or faces,

just vaguely images and thoughts quite spare.

But I believe I'm truly there, not here,

and occupy as much or little time

as I am allowed until it is clear

I must break off and leave what is sublime.

But I prefer my non-waits also zoom,

to freely soar to heights beyond this room.

Till the next revelation

[This prior to reading Heidegger's "What is Metaphysics." If one looks around and experiences, physical and immaterial, and considers, not even contemplates, one can come up with paradoxes philosophical. I celebrate the capacity of ordinary people to speak of extraordinary things and have others ponder life's greatest questions. Thus also, not that I am in any way special. Each is and is worthy of embrace.]

There is _is_,
then everything else.
The latter colonizes fully
such that we forget,


or we are confused
thinking _what is not_
also _is_ and a what.
But that is not so.


The opposite of _is_ is
_is not_, or _is-not_, _non-is_,
an inconceivable no-thing,
paradoxically a named void.


Everything else seems clear
or practically so,
but also without _is_ itself--
that's so hard to imagine.


In fact we can't.
The _non-is_ isn't,
without even a word
as name or to point with.


How can you capture
this whatever _non-is_?
_It_ is not even an _is_,
not abstraction nor subtraction.


Now _it_ points to it,
but this it is no-thing,
related to but not the _it_
that does not exist.


How can all this be?
Just this: There is _is_
then everything else,
and that seems enough.


So we forget,
or in confusion give up.
Or posit a silence
so big that it bangs.


Was there no _is_ before bang?
Must have been, we say,
'cause silence that was so
was so deafening we hear it!


But this the same trap--
silence is a non-experienceable
and it to answer the questions
some void asks us to know.


God then to the rescue,
for those so inclined,
but s/he talks biblical bipolar,
or from our own bicameral mind.


Thus no salvation or knowing.
There is _is_ and everything else
and no-is or ising
or anything of the sort


till the next revelation.