# That which cannot be spoken



## dannyboy (Jul 11, 2016)

Let there be light,
It is said it was said,
Although some say, 
Asimov chief amongst them
It was a computer 
that computed the idea
bringing us back – again –
into the universe of time 
and space — regardless
there is Light
and it has been deemed good
while Darkness forever now
cops the bad rap
and so Light and Darkness are divided
except perhaps in the minds (and hearts?)
of humans where the split
is more of a flickering 
betwixt as actions and thoughts
forever cross the divide because humans
see both as potentials
rather than a firm partition
to be seen from a separate standpoint
and is that why, perhaps,
the name of God cannot be spoken?


----------



## ned (Jul 11, 2016)

hello - an interesting poem, that touched on deep concepts and kept me engaged.

it does get into complicated and muddy issues - and I'm not sure if the correct assumptions are made here.

the god of genesis, seperated the light from dark - but he simply declared that one was day, the other night.
indeed, he created the moon and stars to illuminate the night - he didn't declare that one was good and the
other bad - that would seem to be a human construct, which is at odds with the poem's message.
and there is no 'firm partition', genesis repeatedly acknowledges the phase change of evening and morning.

the second line is a bit of a trip - maybe- It was said, it is said,

no, Asimov did not say that a computer is the creator etc - he wrote a piece of fiction about it, 
which is a totally different thing.

cops the bad rap - this poem maintained a good voice and language, up to this point.

maybe, showing my ignorance here - but why, under any circumstances (beyond bronze-age Jewish fundamentalism)
can the name of god not be spoken? 

this is a really good and ambitious idea for a poem - and mucho kudos to you, for that -
but, according to the book, I feel you have pulled the wrong suspect for the supposed dichotomy.

cheers
Ned


----------



## jenthepen (Jul 11, 2016)

I won't get into a philosophical argument with you, dannyboy. For me, your poem works on an emotional level and that's all I demand from poetry. I thought the differences between the religious, creationists and the scientific, evolutionists were illustrated pretty well.

Your observation that, whatever the first cause, Light exists and has become synonymous with Good, leaving Darkness to represent Bad is accurate. Making the leap from physics to metaphysics, you cleverly point out that mankind is a creature that finds it impossible to live in the Light consistently because thoughts 'forever cross the divide'. Having led us carefully through these indisputable facts, you slam home the conclusion - 'the name of God cannot be spoken.'

For me, this enigmatic ending could be describing the decline in Christianity in the Western world or even suggesting that mankind is unworthy of a perfect god. 

A fantastically complex and deep poem that still has me thinking. Thanks for posting this.

jen


----------



## dannyboy (Jul 11, 2016)

ah ned.

'God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.…' (I make the leap that in making one good He made the other bad). If I have 2 children and I say, "This is my good child," the implication is that the other is not a good child.
as to the Asimov statement - what can I say, Asimov (in his writing) did say (fiction is still a statement, an exploration of an idea, or an argument resolved through story) it was a computer.

thank you jen.


----------



## ned (Jul 11, 2016)

hello - no needs for thanks...

yes, lots of leaps and implications - like I said muddy waters - god did not create the darkness, so it is not necessarily 
good by divine default - but not necessarily bad - strange concept, seperating light and dark, like it's all mixed up.
but seems to leave room for any possibility though.

Asimov - now, come on, it is libellous and rather unfair to construe what he said from reading his fiction alone - 
give me the accredited quote. - from the logic of your argument, he also said that humans colonised Venus etc etc.
he was one of the greatest, and deserves more respect than that - just couch it in less certain terms, for the sake
of honesty - "The last question" what a story! - some say his best.

so, why can't the name of god be spoken?
Ned


----------



## dannyboy (Jul 11, 2016)

The only muddied waters are the waters you seem intent on muddying...Throughout history, myth, writing, etc etc etc, Dark is Bad and Light is good - but please do go on about how this is not so....

we cannot speak his name because we cannot keep that which had been divided divided...we fail...continuously...

Libellous and unfair - I think Asimov would agree with me and is incredibly upset with your take on his story....so ththththtttt...


----------



## Nellie (Jul 12, 2016)

dannyboy said:


> The only muddied waters are the waters you seem intent on muddying..
> 
> Libellous and unfair - I think Asimov would agree with me and is incredibly upset with your take on his story....so ththththtttt...



:thumbl: Thanks for clearing the waters, although for me, it was pretty clear to begin with. There is a BRIGHT Light and there is Darkness (EVIL). The evil to me is all in the minds... mind over matter..... to control..... and god cannot be brought into this because he/she is fiction. Just my POV.


----------



## ned (Jul 12, 2016)

hold on - I'm just taking the trouble to understand the major concept behind your poem

so - in the beginning, god created light which he deemed good - and completely seperated
it from dark - but ever since then, mankind has found it difficult to maintain that complete seperation
and have muddied the waters, between the two - despite-
"Throughout history, myth, writing, etc etc etc, Dark is Bad and Light is good"

in my last reply, I give concession to that possibility, if you read it -
after all, this is a poem, not a historical document - 

but even poems should not tell lies about real people - no matter what you "think"
 - as advice, and in all good faith, I suggested softening that message - c'est la vie.


----------



## dannyboy (Jul 12, 2016)

lies now...thanks Asimov.


----------



## ned (Jul 12, 2016)

ok - I give up, yes Isaac really believed that a giant super-computer created the universe
just because he wrote a story about it. 
in the same way that A.A. Milne really believed that a walking, talking teddy bear lived in the woods.

I mean, where does that assumption end?

Danny, I'm on your side here - I see an interesting idea for a fantastic poem - that hasn't quite crystalised
because the message isn't that clear - and I indicate where I reckon the poem takes an unnecessary diversion.

I do not write reviews to be satisfied with criticism, but hope to contribute to author's efforts of turning potential 
into something special - that would be my satisfaction - ok, I'm rather blunt, and I do not throw plastic bouquets
but my criticism is not there for its own sake.

the rest is up to you
Ned


----------



## Kevin (Jul 13, 2016)

Like Asimov i took it as a possible explanation, not gospel as i agree (with it) that true gospel is something we're incapable of, though the poet may disagree and suggest that it is merely unsustainable, but then the Absolute requires such, at least in the New, asks for it; in the Old demands it. A small thing but I think i'd toss 'cops the...' as too...slangy and place-in-time which does not, to my mind, fit with the rest. Perhaps I missed something there. Sorry for the ramble.


----------



## dannyboy (Jul 13, 2016)

thank you Kevin.


----------



## Ariel (Jul 13, 2016)

*This is not the place for argument or debate of any kind. Please return to critiquing the poem as stands. *


----------

