PostPoems Be Artistic. Be Creative. Be Inspired!

LEGAL DISCLAIMER:  This poem is an abstract idea and does not pertain to any particular person (i.e., like most art, they are subject to interpretation, as well).

Reupdated/reedited/emended on 01.17.2020:

1.)  I supplanted..

 

"Thus, I reedited/retyped that subconscious mistake/error to conform to the that specific English grammar rule) or *I simply supplanted it for the correct word/term" 

 

for

 

"Thus, I reedited/retyped that subconscious mistake/error (to conform to that specific English grammar rule) or I simply supplanted it for the correct word/term" (a previous cut/copy-and-paste method but that which I possibly forgot to edit on the fly when I pasted it...)

 

 

..from the Author's Notes/Comments section itself for emending the published note/commentary accurately or for clarifying that I do not wish to put an asterisk to mark the error in this field where I do specific notes or comments (because I do those only to my own notes, rather than on "notes" that are published here.. And I believe that it was included when I did the cutting & pasting from my own notes to this one).

 

 

 

2.)  I also supplanted "(to conform to the that specific English grammar rule)" for "(to conform to that specific English grammar rule)" (it was possibly from mistyping that for the somewhat homophonous nature of "th" in "the" and "that" whenever I'm in the process of typing and while verbalizing it, thus, in my head.

Previous unedited version of that part:

"1.)  I supplanted Thus, I reedited/retyped that subconscious mistake/error to conform to the that specific English grammar rule) or *I simply supplanted it for the correct word/term' for 'Thus, I reedited/retyped that subconscious mistake/error (to conform to the that specific English grammar rule) or..."

3.)  I also have noticed the error "as I double-checked my poem (when I get the chance)", therefore, I have supplanted that for "as I double-checked my poem (when I got the chance).."

Thank you for reading on!

Reupdated/reedited/emended on 01.09.2020:

1.)  I supplanted "Thus, I reedited/retyped that subconscious mistake/error to conform to that specific English grammar rule) or I simply supplanted it for the correct word/term" for "Thus, I reedited/retyped that subconscious mistake/error (to conform to that specific English grammar rule) or I simply supplanted it for correct word/term"; I have rechecked or reviewed the Author's Notes/Comments section as I double-checked my poem (when I got the chance) & noticed that I missed an open parenthesis plus the inclusion of the pronoun "I".  Thank you for your consideration ( I apologize as I also have mostly done this, & have probably committed those mistakes, while I'm on the go.

2.)  I also supplanted "Retained, unedited version (due to an hmgrammatical error which can found exactly on number one, from the reedition, dated 12.25.2019):" for "Retained, unedited version (due to an ungrammatical error which can found exactly on number one, from the reedition, dated 12.25.2019):"; I have noticed the mistyped/misspelled word "hmgrammatical" & have corrected it, thus.

Reupdated/reedited/emended on 01.01.2020:  

1.)  I have corrected the misspelled word "Botes" & have simply supplanted that for "Notes".  Please kindly refer to the unedited version below.

2.)  I have also basically supplanted the misconceived and misspelled/mistyped word "parenthesis" for the right one.  I have noticed that its a singular form of the word that did not correspond to the subject-verb agreement, in my sentence.  Thus, I reedited/retyped that subconscious mistake/error to conform to the that specific English grammar rule) or simply supplanted it for the correct word/term "parentheses" (its plural form) to make it easier for me to learn the difference (in its correct usage).

 

Retained, unedited version:  

"Reupdated on 12.25.2019:  I have reviewed this Author's Botes/Comments once more & have reedited the following for being hasty the last time that I have done some edits to it."

 

Retained, unedited version (due to an hmgrammatical error which can found exactly on number one, from the reedition, dated 12.25.2019):  

Reupdated on 12.25.2019:  I have reviewed this Author's Notes/Comments once more & have reedited the following for being hasty the last time that I have done some edits to it.

 

1.)  I have omitted the "(" from a paragraph that was already enclosed in a parenthesis.  Therefore, there are two open parenthesis previously which was a mistake.  [Here is the previous unedited version of the paragraph:  "(or that we are particularly sensitive to the repercussions of talking about politics (and or being politically correct otherwise)"

Reupdated on 12.25.2019:  I have reviewed this Author's Notes/Comments once more & have reedited the following for being hasty the last time that I have done some edits to it.

1.)  I have omitted the "(" from a paragraph that was already enclosed in a parenthesis.  Therefore, there are two open parentheses previously which was a mistake.  [Here is the previous unedited version of the paragraph:  "(or that we are particularly sensitive to the repercussions of talking about politics (and or being politically correct otherwise)"

Reupdated on 12.23.2019:  I have reviewed what I have commented on this section & have reedited the following:  

1.)  "the repercussions of talking about it while working together" (by supplanting it for "the repercussions of talking about politics (and or being politically correct otherwise)".

2.)  "discretions" was supplanted for "discretion".

3.)  I have reedited the format of the numbered list to better enumerate the changes made unto this Author's Notes/Comments.

4.)  Upon second look, or upon reviewing this incidentally, I also could not help and had to reedit the former reedition because of an "asterisk" that was previously left in the text after it was published.  It was simply used to serve as a mark, for me, while I edit my "texts" earlier on.

 

 

(Previous Unedited Version:  "...we are particularly sensitive to the repercussions of talking about *politics".)

 

Reupdated on 12.22.2019:  1.)  I have reedited one of the hashtags because of an incorrect input "& New Criticism" & instead omitted the "&" (this was due to cutting & pasting the input from this Author's Notes/Comments that have included every bit of the listed terms).  2.)  I also have changed the word "authorships" to "their authorship" to properly distinguish between a 'mass noun' versus a 'count noun', as I later have learned along the way while double-checking my English grammar, incidentally.)

Reupdated 12.21.2019:  I simply have added unto the hashtags, the following words/phrases:  Neil Postman, Postman, Media theory, Herbert Marshall McLuhan, McLuhan,Marshall McLuhan, media, mass media, sensorium, & New Criticism.  I learned of Neil Postman first (forgetting his full name that time), then about Marshall McLuhan from my co-worker (once again), for whenever we have talked at the workplace (not while social loafing this time), we have also tried to share their authorship.  We could not help exchanging notes about various subjects, especially our views regarding our contemporary, & or our modern/postmodern world, & in reaction to it (at least, as we speak—so to speak).  It's just that our area/line of work was designed to deal with a social aspect where the social structure depends on (i.e. or the way in which we are involved in it) which is also deemed under an overarching category, which included topics/thematic relations that are believed to be having a direct relationship to an industry thought to be constructed by social norms & fueled by certain expectations.  Our discussions were not limited to Western Civilization, to Political Theory, or to Art (just recently), or to the wide gamut of the books which we actually own & that which we would later give our own feedbacks/criticisms on, but also on religion and the corporate world (plus many others..).  It also have entailed some talks about Politics itself, but we never really had gotten ourselves involved in such discussions (blithely or jokingly).  We talked about certain things, but not so much about that—not in the workplace.  That's what I liked about our work ethic.  In our midst, we discourage it (tacitly); &, perhaps, that's because of our own discretion (or that we are particularly sensitive to the repercussions of talking about politics and or being politically correct otherwise).  Thank you for reading on!

 Reedited 07.11.2019, 07.08.2019; 07.03.2019; 07.02.2019; 06.26/27.2019 (for general grammatical &/or semantical errors, misspelled words, & ambiguities/clarifications):  

 

This is, indeed, just another "tanka" exercise.  Like most of the other tankas that have been published here, for the same stated purposes, they were also primarily intended for me to learn from the get-go.  That was the surface reason:  in understanding my own notions of the poetical distinctions between a tanka & a haiku (&/or/versus other poetical forms, their fundamental use as a vehicle for expression in classic/modern/postmodern literature; still considered as modes of expression anyhow despite the varying adaptations even up to now, especially in my investigations of the "indeterminacy of translation", Quine).  Nonetheless, I do not intend to make anything more out of them other than that which was stated, i.e., the didactic part of it.  It neither means anything more than that which was implicitly explained nor anything else that may possibly be assumed (assumptions that may also be expected, which might precede these developments as they get showcased or self-published).—Because it is also a learning experience, so to speak a synonymy of a learning objective, I solely wanted to learn (& relearn the essences) about how language(s) (or theories of language, in general) are distinguished in respect to its many contradistinctions/aspects/properties/use/etc., ie., descriptivism vs prescriptivism, how those [said features] interrelate to meaningfulness/meaninglessness to either myself or others, & penultimately how the Japanese, themselves, supposed to have intended their own expressions/ideas to mean—in relation to my "own" usage).  Of course, that could still mean going to back to historical accounts of their own systematized body of knowledge in its foundational knowledge (as pertains to literature & those multifarious factors that have mainly contributed to those movements (i.e., in their art forms).  I know of the basic premises..that there must exist, either metaphysically or empirically, a divide between two cultural traditions and how my poems could be considered too synthetic, by comparison.  An intellectual's pursuit (e.g., his intellectualisation about anything, or for the matter at hand) can be only deemed so (a so-called "claim", even by him); one may even seem to appear megalomaniac, because like a maxim, that's how intellectualizing may look like (e.g., that's how it may appear to work within a particular linguistic/phenomenological/logical system).  But more than this, there is still an overriding principle which is my aim, i.e., to further analyze the philosophical distinctions between them, as well (when observed through a wide-ranging lens or purview/scope which also could mean its "analyticity" in regards to theoretical analyses that span intersubjectively, e.g., trans-/inter-/multi-/cross-disciplinarity).  Pretty much how Quine have been said to have arrived at one of his theses about translation &/or his ideas on synonymy—as by having his pragmatic stance on one of those said theses (versus, in what I've studied so far, e.g., logicists/logical positivists vs. the continental philosophers' take on Linguistic Philosophy & other sociolinguistical concepts and theories which I will mention in the next instance when given a chance).  There is no definite goal to be achieved right now, but for my own self-discovery of my casual use of language by its direct/indirect applications (about effective communication/communicative action) and for enhancing my unripe understanding of the dichotomies involved in  semantics/pragmatics/syntactics/semiotics which could be one instance alone of that exercise in my daily application.  It is, in fact, a part of current curricula in Sociology & Psychology (according to one of my co-workers).  In an English-speaking world, where English is predominantly taught as primary subject matter in most learning institutions, my self-directed studies may be deemed significant by my own standard of measure due to it has given me a good start to align certain variables versus many other linguistic factors/phenomena (social phenomena) & other traditions in the Western analytic tradition (in Philosophy, as by the use of the English language or its translations from German & French or Latin/Greek for use in both Continental & Analytic Philosophy).  Howsoever, this concept that I just had formed here may be deemed insignificant by others, e.g., in another [specified] way or contrastingly. It is both a phenomenon and a noumenon (e.g., if one should go by Kant's basic descriptions of such).

Additional hashtags that were not input above are: #mediacultures, #satanicmanifestation, #indwelling, #infilling .

Reedited 08.31.2019 (corrected a misspelled word in the Author's Notes/Comments: introspecive - intros*pective); 07.05.2019; 07.02.2019 grammatical error correction: (due *to, versus due *from, self-directedness versus self-directed learning)  

Reedited 06.22.2019 (for corrections regarding the mismatched syllables in the last line which was not seven syllables (when I thought it was before), if the 5-7-5-7-7 basic tanka description is to be followed.  This error was intuitable in that specific time, yet the error was still committed because I thought that I was doing it right  (I would recall that it was possibly due to excitability in those initial moments; & which I only have been able to finally confirm along the way by verifying its initial descriptive notion as I went over it this time (ipso facto, earlier today).  This is a helpful aid in my self-directed learning since this was an issue with descriptivism.

06.07.2019 reedition (for grammatical & semantical errors):

This was just an attempt at composing a "tanka" after a very, very long time that I had not composed one.  Although not published here, I have known that I have created some Japanese poems beforehand  (in the decades that are passé).  Believing, at first, that I was mindfully creating a haiku, which was my 'real intention' (until this was being thought out right now), my recounting proved that I am mistaken (mostly due to the descriptions I once held in my mind to be 'true'—e.g., a 'Gettier problem', in an epistemological sense).  In my mind, I was wanting to make a poem, in short verses.  And I could not help but recall the 'Japanese art', until later when I began realizing that—via a causal relation—"I might have gotten something wrong" (also by virtue of merely going by the term's/definition's sake).  Both of their definitions were readily available in my mobile device's built-in dictionary & are easily accessible; yet despite that obvious breakthrough of technological convenience, I figured that it is not enough for me to truly grasp the essence of such a particular Japanese "art form" (from an 'a priori' knowledge).  And then, somehow, the 'a posteriori' notion prodded me because of this process in my introspective/reflective note/commentary). This particular poem, (i.e., an actual example of my 'tanka') has got me in that realization.  Its poetic style have me liking it more, which emphatically may have quite something to do with why I liked it all the more (because of its refined/distilled appeal).  Quite, I liked it so much (I thought)..even though I still have yet to figure out both of their distinctive qualities (i.e., tanka vs. haiku) which does not warrant a self-directed learning in any way.  Right now, I cannot yet say why, in terms of technicality, because I just wanted to emphasize a 'particularity' whenever I expound on its adverbialism (in this respect, with my objectification/objectivity).  The rest would be left to the spontaneity of the learning experiences of life.  Although, truthfully, a tanka - how my experimentation turned out to be, has that totally different approach & meaning to poetry (as compared to a "haiku")..while I mistakenly was thinking that I was actually composing a haiku for that matter.  That spontaneous occurrence mattered in that it happened aptly, when I would have liked it to be happening at this time.  The end result is valuable empirical data [outcome].—The mobile device, where the sources of informational products were "actually" taken from, & that which had provided me with the quickest possible reference at the time, was just a particular "language text" defining the "definiendum" ["tanka"].  This was seemingly the recallable driving force and decision point for its final publication.  Thus, it ended up here, howsoever, & that had also given me enough (or more) reasons to examine my poems—in this capacity.  Once again, I apologize for my long notes (which you can expect sometimes whenever I have something to post/to share here).  Kindly please pardon my philosophizing as I have tried to give my comment on several accounts or viewpoints (a multiperspective approach with a lot of contextual dimensions & intertextuality).  Thank you for looking on!

 

 

 

Seasons In Hell celebrations. Rite references from Dracomeroth unless otherwise noted. Ideally, all celebrations include cake & orgies!