It's easy to read this poem, and get a completely different viewpoint. It's almost entirely inescapable for me, living by the Susquehanna, to see something entirely wrong in the poem. Though, a neat little interpolation I drew from it... it wasn't correct. The fact remains, that I put question marks by the word "Tattoo". I didn't like it in the poem, and thought Heaney was just pandering to a sort of strange ethos. It seemed strangely placed, and it should have been my first clue to slow down, and look at the poem more carefully. As, the "Tattoo" was taking another denotation, that of a "drumming" and it was describing the rain. Many things I got correct. Such as the description of the Tillage, the time of year---because I'm from a rural area too, these sorts of questions come to my mind. Yet, many things I got wrong, such as "rig" which didn't mean boat, but meant the tillage. And also "Tattoo", which dubiously I thought was placed in the poem, and I had begun to think I was reading an amateur. I followed through with my investigation, not knowing that "docken" wasn't "dock" as that's Scottish, but was "docken" as in dandelion, thistle, stinkweed, milkweed and the such. I had interpreted half the poem, yet why didn't I use my literary pretension, to assume that "Tattoo" in this instance wasn't being used to represent what I commonly think, and then the rest of the poem as well. It's a trap, of course, Seamus placed in the poem. Probably one to pleasantly drive a reader like myself to this other interpolation. Not dubiously, would a skilled reader place question marks next to "Tattoo", yet a more skilled reader might try to find sense three or four of the word in Webster. Which, this brings one to a question, of the reader's aptitude. Had I gone with my better instincts, in being skeptical of the word "Tattoo" and not been tainted by instagram poetry where such things would unapologetically be thrown around... I may have gotten the right answer on a first draw through. The poem is using idiomatic expression from the locale of Broagh; its dialect. So, pad, rig, docken and tattoo are not portmanteau or expressions of boats. It should be obvious to anyone, knowing the river is too small, the Moyola river is too small to have boats or docks in it. Yet, none are clued into that, unless they take great offense at the word "tattoo" and are thereby questioning the very deceptive nature of the wording of the poem. Seamus is aware of this, too, as there is a pleasant little side trek one can go on without first knowing the true meaning of the word. Yet, it would assume that Seamus would use the word "Tattoo" and refer it to a footprint. Such a thing is of an inferior quality for a poet of such high caliber, and ought to be condescended to the local dialect, over one's own prejudices and word associations. (Unless, of course, Seamus was superbly skilled enough to dual wield a metaphor, and thereby allow negative capability so a lay reader can also enjoy the poem. To which, if the poem has negative capability, Seamus' mastery is all to forward to make the use of Second Person Figure, to say that this significant character's footprint is now tattooed into the soil of Broagh. But, one would have to interpret the rhubarb is what ends like the "gh" and not the rain; to which, I received a pleasant meditation on man's impact on the environment with farming, getting a sort of sense of how we, through this, are a part of the land and nature, too.) The poem was beautiful, and the tradition is called Dinnseanchas, or more appropriately simplified to, "Place-lore." It's creating a mythology for the place---the very specific locale. And all of that is fine, yet how do we get to the true interpretation of the poem? Obviously Seamus gets us there by placing a gaudy word like "tattoo" into the poem, to help us be skeptical of some of the word choice. To make us tread more carefully through the poem's use of seemingly obvious words. Because, after using the internet to search the river, it should be clear the river is not wide like the Susquehanna, but is rather what we would call around my parts a creek. There can't be docks and boats on it. Which, is why "tattoo", the specious word choice, becomes the most critical word in the poem, to help the reader doubt their first impressions on the poem's meaning. As the poem is not about the narrator's childhood, where he would place shoeprints in the tillage. As there's another carefully chosen word, an innocuous one, "You". The poem uses Second Person Figure. Therefore, the narrator is talking to someone other than himself. Which, the word "tattoo" ought to bring one to this subtle doubt of their own first impressions. The rabbit hole is quite pleasant, but it's not the true interpretation of the poem, which can only be rendered in such a way that "tattoo" is the word which brings us to doubt our first impressions. And if one places question marks next to the word, to question why Seamus would use such a base word, it is meant to bring one to that question, and to be answered by a rarer, and more beautiful and poetic denotation. Heaney, Seamus. Selected Poems 1966 - 1987. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1990. Twelfth Printing, 1999. Text. mrdgEnglish. 05 Broagh. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aykv6QCWaEc. 2/14/22. Web.
The Slave Bukowski
Another writer forced into the dubious nature of making a publisher rich. A slave to future publishers who made a fortune off of his writing, while he remained penniless. And what's worse, Bukowski celebrated this. If I thought he was a fool before, I now think him doubly the fool. If writing is like making love to a beautiful woman, and then getting paid, I call that same thing marriage. Which, he scorned. A song is playing, "A Little Bit of Sympathy." I will give him sympathy. The same censorship which left him destitute is the same idiocy that keeps me. I do not want a publisher making millions off of my work, while I lived scrounging for the bare minimum. I enjoy writing, I find wisdom in it... But I do not wish to make someone else rich. Unless, of course, I had already had my fair salary. Then I do not care what happens to my writing, if I got to eat from its fruits. How many writers does this happen to? Austen, Chatterton, Bukowski. The greatest insult is the generations later, who consume the books like a product, making publishers rich while the genius behind it hadn't made all but five hundred dollars. It's ridiculous. The most noble author is the one who gets paid for his genius. The most unfortunate author is the one who pays his publisher for his genius. It's better not to get published at all. Bukowski---I don't despise your writing. Only that you needed to be paid for your work. Not like a slave. Though, it's the wisdom of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes. A man compiles a whole lifetime for wisdom, and gives it to another man more righteous than himself. I hope to purify myself through Christ, so I can eat. But, you wrote wisely on the vanity of life, and had we been switched in time and space, we'd probably both have enjoyed our bounty. Your wisdom was that life is vanity. However, I have hope.
Disagreement
I had about an hour's long conversation about my philosophy of Logos with a friend. And I had noted the sensation of it turning into a debate. There was that antagonism, that shame, that hearty readiness for a rebuttal. I, then, listened. As what else could I do if someone were so adamant about their view. The topic was on Hebrews 11:1. Which in the KJV is interpreted as "The substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen." In his translation it was, "The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction about things unseen." We got lost in the rabbit hole of Interlinear translations, to which I drew out my own interpretation, which is likely the most accurate with regard to the original Greek, "The understanding of things hoped for, and the exposing of things not seen." To which, Paul says not to quarrel about words. So, I simply laid out the evidence of God's existence. The Moral Law and the Fruit of the Spirit. As, these two go hand in hand. That we ought to minister, as Paul said, with power and not through man's reason. What is that power? It is kindness. Love. Patience. And if we obey those teachings---and others such as the Sabbath's Rest or to not Covet---we find ourselves happier. For that is the Logos, is God's word, as evidenced by the Great Sages who speak it through having found it by diligent search. It became clear to me that for a man to be a sage, he must have found God's word on his own. I had known this already, but I communicated it. Where he disagreed was in the sense that he interpreted what I had to say as "Reason". I do use reason, as firmly based on the evidence for the faith. The overwhelming evidence, but that reason is not something which a man can put under a microscope, nor scratch at with a scalpel. It is rather something that comes through understanding the meaning, and sense of the world around you. To which, in that meaning---the invisible evidence---we discover God's existence. He furthermore stated that one need assurance and conviction. I agreed wholeheartedly, yet what can a man stand on assuredly, without evidence? That is why Faith exposes what is unseen. It draws forth the hidden meanings and truths, which sensibly can be communicated and only a fool would refute it. This does not stop many men from being foolish. But, as the Founders of our Constitution felt, truth was self evident and established in God's Law. That God's Law was self evident---and on that framework, was our entire constitution framed. That truth is self evident. And surely it is, given that what we see from diverting from that truth is the pathways which directly cause suffering. That is why God is true, because we observe what is true, and see it firmly establishes the Law God laid down in the Holy Scripture. Which, if one reads the Holy Scripture scientifically, they neither find meaning or reason because they are looking to describe the miraculous with something mundane. Rather, the end of our conversation derived the true meaning of faith, which is in light of the overwhelming evidence that God is Who He claims in the Bible, we can rest assuredly that the things we do not understand---such as King Saul's Death, Noah's Flood or Adam and Eve in the Garden and the Tower of Babel---are sufficiently provided through the omnipotence of God's love. For without that Love firmly established and rooted in the truth, what would life be but despair and suffering?
Now or Then?
There is a great divide among literary theorists on whether we interpret a piece of literature in view of today's age, or we view it in the view of the past. Some silly ideas were posited that we can read a word in its modern denotation over its archaic denotation. But, I find that has a singular answer, that we ought to read a word within its original context. But, the idea persists, whether we read a work only as it relates in its historical context, or if we read a text as it relates to the modern age. And I think this is a question we ought to answer. The answer, of course, is that we do both. No work can properly be communicated unless we read it in view of today's age. Without our modern understanding, the works we read can have no significance whatsoever. Having no recourse to modern wisdom, modern ideas, our current environment, the works of the past mean nothing. As, I was reading Samuel Adam's essay, and I had realized quite immediately that the words resonated today as much as they did then. Yet, if one pedantically read the work as it was in the time period---they would say, "Well, these times were different." I'd say yes, they were. But, without a doubt, the words resonated with me in today's climate, as a defense of freedom in view of the declining Western Condition. That decline is into classism, tyranny, and a loss of mobility. And Samuel Adam's works resonated so strongly, that exactly what he wrote about then applies to today's age. The circumstances are different, yet the principles translate across time barriers. That, if the English can be understood, then there remains cross parallels between the past and present, which are inherent in communication. It's not a secret that this is how the Bible communicates its message. A lot of preachers go wrong by trying to study it purely within the historical context---and often they evade the obvious meaning by doing so. I've heard it done many times, people drawing what they think the story meant in the contemporary context, such as Jesus' parables or teachings. Yet, the stories are universally so, that it would be appalling to think that one would need that historical context to understand the Bible. People, for centuries, were without it, and the Bible communicated truth to billions of people independently of its historical age. With this, I think it's important we understand interpretation doesn't mean pedantic forays into the exact context and meaning, to cut off from it relevant meaning for today. It's imperative, often, that one brings with their interpretation some of their own knowledge, or else the knowledge cannot be assimilated within the modern framework. Equally, it's important to know and interpret the text exactly as it was read back in its age, as that, too, is itself an important context. That too draws wisdom, and historical insight. Therefore, reading ought to be dualistic, keeping both the past and the present in mind when analyzing a text for its significance. Various. The Constitution of the United States of America and Selected Writings of the Founding Fathers. "American Independence", by Samuel Adams, pp. 113 -125. Barnes and Noble, inc, Leather Bound Classics, 2012. Text.
Online Debate
It used to be something I did, was argue incessantly with Atheists on YouTube. And then I read the scripture, "They fast for strife and debate." I realized that was my fast. I was ministering to an audience, that---having made the mistake again---can only seethe with hatred and slander and abuse. Paul lists debate as a sin in Titus 3:9. And I realized apologetics is a useless field. The more we argue with nonbelievers, the more we show ourselves on their turf. The constant debates are sinful. When atheists ask for evidence, I have piles of it. I can literally write entire books on the evidence for God's existence. If they don't want to believe, they don't want to believe. It's not for a lack of evidence that these atheists lose their faith. It is a lack of faith. A lack of desire for God. An atheist posted a nasty little remark on a channel. I could have gone through the entire schloop. What would it have accomplished? Unless he were willing to learn---unless he had desire for God---there'd be no breaking through to him. Truthfully, what brings men to God is a life well lived. A life of obedience, and then the following joy. We can talk until we're blue in the face, but unless we minister with power---the power of the fruit of God's Spirit---we can never accomplish a persuading argument. What would happen? I would talk for hours with this person. Maybe even days. Every comment I'd sense his undying hatred. His quarrelsome spirit. The yoke of the burden of the conversation would hang over me. He, in his foolishness, would bring up some obscure point of nihilism. He just doesn't want to see the evidence. The evidence is that God's law works. It works better than our faulty understanding. A whole generation are taken away in their wickedness. They think all day on violence and lust. It is not curiosity, nor nobility that atheists start quarrels. It is merely their own hatred for your soul. The demon within them, which wants to destroy all peace. Quarrel not. Debate not. Nobody was won to the faith from an argument.
Why Jesus Wasn’t A Trans-Woman
Jesus had to be perfect. Both in body, and in soul. A trans-woman mutilates his body. And a trans-woman has imperfection in his soul. If you offer a lame sacrifice---as is quoted in the prophets---God will not accept it. Meaning, your vision of Jesus must be as pure as God Himself. If you have a Jesus in your mind Who sinned, then you cannot be cleansed by Christ. One must, therefore, hold a perfect image of Christ in their mind. Otherwise, they have offered a lame idol before God, and that idol will destroy you. Jesus must be wholly without sin. Never having tasted sin. Completely pure, perfect, unblemished, unstained by the world. And, by reading the Bible we understand He was. He was kind, compassionate, loving---yet also stern. We must understand that God's love encompasses discipline for sin. If God has love for His subjects, He will discipline us like a father will his son. He will not leave us undisciplined. He will strike us, hard sometimes. As the prophet in Micah was placed in prison for his sin, and God had placed him there for a time. God is a disciplinarian. We must understand this. We must not divert from this understanding, that God is wholly pure, wholly perfect, unstained, unblemished, without sin, without having done violence: without having love or kindness He cannot be God. Yet, that same Christ will come back with the sword and destroy the sinners. He is wholly a Prince of Peace, yet also, has wrath stored up for children of disobedience.
More Aphorisms
Aphorism 1. We can know a man's idolatry through the sins he imparts on Jesus. Aphorism 2. If your image of Christ isn't wholly unblemished, than neither can you be. Aphorism 3. I once saw a fool boast, "Jesus loves me". Their sin caused a great fall, but then they continued to say, "Jesus would never cause me to fall." Aphorism 4. I saw a shrine to a wicked man destroyed by a thunder bolt. Aphorism 5. If one understood Einstein, it wouldn't be impressive that light is both a wave and particle---measured, it will be a particle, yet moves at the fastest speed allowable; therefore, those particles will be waves when not slowed down in a lab. Aphorism 6. I'm skeptical that merely observing something changes its quantum reaction---I think like light, it makes more sense that it will just behave different when isolated. I'm skeptical of New Age mysticism because I do, Mr. Dawkins, understand science. Aphorism 7. Choosing a mate ought to be as comfortable a decision as settling into a drawn bath. If love doesn't come that easy, then don't make the mistake of sleeping with them. Aphorism 8. If love comes naturally, make the mistake of marrying before making the mistake of getting into bed. Aphorism 9. I've seen so many with good intentions fail to do good. That is why faith is a prerequisite for good works. Aphorism 10. The planets, sun, moon and stars move exactly how they will. It can be calculated out to infinity. Every body in the universe interacts with time according to its own gravity. Yet, from wherever you stand, all other bodies move relative to your world, keeping all within the same breadth. Aphorism 11. The sin we are most outraged about in others, is a sin we ourselves have tasted and feared. Aphorism 12. Prison is the most unforgiving environment. That's how I know guilt is the root cause of all moral outrage. Aphorism 13. A fool once said, "If you don't sin, Jesus died for nothing." I know she has sin. It's just society is more forgiving toward hers. Aphorism 14. If a society accepted rape, no one would be ashamed of it. I'm glad I live in a society that understands its gravity. However, all other sins of a carnal nature are just as serious. Aphorism 15. Adultery, Divorce, Sodomy, Transsexuality, Premarital Sex, Polyamory, Serial Monogamy, Bitterness, Judgment, Hatred, Self-Conceit, Self-Righteousness, Self Centeredness, Ingratitude, and Dishonoring the Sabbath are all carnal sins which our culture deems as noble. Aphorism 16. To know why our culture is so unhappy, just look at all the sin it calls good. Aphorism 17. Not all modern inventions are bad. Just like not all old customs are good. Aphorism 18. Some people want there to be no meaning. Aphorism 19. Life is a struggle between Meaning and Nonentity; Good and Evil; Right and Wrong; Kindness and Cruelty; Love and Self-Love... Truth and Aught. Aphorism 20. The biggest decision in life, is to believe in something or nothing at all. Aphorism 21. A Rational Moralist has more in common with me than a Christian Fundamentalist. Aphorism 22. Do not mistake my skepticism. I am fully devoted to the Bodily Resurrection of Christ. Aphorism 23. The Bible is true, but not literally. Aphorism 24. I'm 100% certain God exists, and He is the God of the Bible; but, I have a different way of understanding Him than most people. Aphorism 25. Saul died in two different ways. Yet, I'm more skeptical of the Bible's skeptics, than I am of Childlike faith.
An Analysis of Charles Bukowski
In the 1950's, art was censored just like it is today. Today, however, Bukowski would have no problem getting published. He'd be a hero. He'd be a social media warrior. The world as it is today punishes artists like myself. Ones who hone craft, develop theme, achieve excellence and wisdom, punctuate form. Ones who study the craft, find deep intrinsic meaning. Because the world doesn't want meaning. It wants to look at its own affluence, and say, "I despise this." Bukowski needed to be a writer. Like I, he could do no other thing but write. Writing was a salvation... a way to mend brokenness. Yet, for me it was the sublime childhood I had, the loving mother and father, contrasted with hedonistic peers, scathing and unforgiving fictive family, teachers who didn't give a damn about me. I had not been abused by my mother or father. I had been abused by peers, by teachers who gave me handicaps and made me a target for everyone else. I have much in common with Bukowski. A childhood riddled with abuse. Yet, I developed trust. Where he didn't. I don't want to be with broken people---I've known enough of them. I want to be with wise people, who have the straight neck tie, who have the nine to five job. I just want my writing to be my nine to five. I want it to be what gives me sustenance, as that is my American Dream. He had his, being the most flagrant supporter of everything wrong. Yet, today we reward that skepticism. And I am skeptical of him. I've met enough men who claimed there were no morals. And those same men scathed me, stabbed me in the heart, and fought scorched earth warfare against my soul. I do not want those people in my life. I like people who don't have fire in them. People who don't want to take from me. I've had few friends---a few very good friends. And in my poverty, most all have abandoned me, having taught me all I need to know of the human condition. That it is success which conforms a man to this world. I could write Shakespearean quality works, if not for my outlawed craft, that being the observation of a simple fact. There is right and wrong. And I've seen it my whole life. My favorite shows were the ones which taught and showed healthy people. All of my characters are healthy people, sometimes driven insane by an unhealthy world. For, in the end, I am healthy. I am a healthy man driven insane by the stress of a world which rejected the things I took for granted. Love, Mercy, Forgiveness, Justice, Peace, Unconditional Friendship. Those I took for granted. And I had found that all else, men do not hold the same values I hold. They, rather, revel in the dysfunction and the laziness of scathing well lived lives. I speak not of Warehouse workers, who truly don't earn enough to live. No, I speak of the postmaster, who having everything in life, still feels unsatisfied. I, with nothing but a few people who love me, the people who truly matter, am already satisfied. I am satisfied with little coupled with love. And, I hope to one day be blessed with a small fortune from my golden wisdom. For, I wish to enrich people to see the thing I have. Be satisfied with the thing you choose. Charles, if wise, is wise for having chosen.
Adonis’ New Noah, an Analysis
Striking verse. Like I myself had written it. I wonder why I'm not published as yet, when I can strike just as hard. Perhaps it's just I answer the question. God would not call on you, Adonis. Because you wouldn't heed His word. God is not a fool. I don't believe one could conceive of the thoughts of Noah. They were probably very few. Probably like a bunny rabbit, shivering in the bush during a lightning storm. There was probably love. If the whole world were destroyed today, it were only because they did look for other gods. And found them, they did with science. Which, shamefacedly destroys liberty as we speak. No, the god you refer to, God,---that's His name---His laws are perfect. Should He have destroyed the world during Noah, I can completely understand. Yet, St. Peter said the world this next time would be destroyed by fire. It never said whose. You strike with verse. Unashamedly. I strike back. Nobody believes in God anymore, and the world is in utter chaos. There is no peace. There is no joy. There is utter pandemonium because men have forsaken His law. Whose, law, is it that you forsake? Do not covet? Do not murder? Honor the Sabbath? If men honored the Sabbath, Adonis, there wouldn't be an ounce of the political and economic corruption there is today. Because men need rest. Do men rest, Adonis? Didn't Christ say, "The Sabbath was made for man?" Yes, because the Laws of God were not some arbitrary thing He told us to laugh at our suffering. It was because by not following it, there would only be suffering. Moreover, do you have a problem with God being God? Who else would die for you? Give laws so obvious? Did men, or yourself, ever find a law? Are you Mozi or Confucius, a sage? Able to find the Logos? Are you Aristotle? Able to discover the accidental reasons God's law exist? No. You are but a man who took the name of a demigod. You made yourself a hero, foolishly. Here is what I say to you: Are the worlds better without Christ today? Because He is gone. Do the masses throng to Him? Oh, yes they do, but powerful men like yourself censure the humble masses for wanting Christ as their LORD. They cry for justice, peace, love, joy---yet, they live in abject poverty. Who, therefore, will compensate them for this suffering? Not you, I assume. You write poetry, get rich---maybe you do charity. What then? Are you God, that you can recompense the poor for their lives of utter and abject suffering? I ask you this question. Since you are the modern day Nietzsche. I saw you compared to T. S. Eliot. Well, even he found faith because he said, famously, "Let me never turn again." Why is that? Perhaps that line needs to be meditated on, Adonis. Adonis. "The New Noah." Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/49323/the-new-noah. 2/13/22. Web.
My Theology for the Philadelphia Lutheran Synod, Which I Wish to Establish Someday
First, I attest to the three oldest creeds of the faith. The Athanasian Creed, the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. Second, I believe in John Bunyan's understanding of Calvanism. I believe we are sealed by God, through the predestination of His election, And that we must hold onto our Seal, lest we succumb to death by rejecting Christ. I believe every man, woman and child are called and written into the book of life Until they have sinned, and were thereby separated. Yet, by accepting the LORD Jesus, our names are rewritten back into the book of life. If we lose our profession of faith, our names will be blotted out of the book of life. I believe in the Millennial Kingdom, as prophesied in Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation; That it is its own distinct time and dispensation Meant to give sustenance to those who've suffered in this life; that they shall then gain the things of this world during Christ's reign, and it will be so that the Meek inherit the Earth. I believe in dispensations, that first men had a vapor of knowledge that God exists And later, God would reveal Himself to Abraham, and Moses, the Prophets and finally reveal Himself unto Death as Christ Jesus, and furthermore through the Apostles. I believe works of charity are integral for salvation. If one has sustenance, they must give to the poor, and have a deep desire to do so. I believe that the Old Covenant is what Jesus referred to as "Finished", And that when Paul says "Works" he means "Works" pertaining to the Mosaic Covenant. I believe in the direct revelation of Prophets and Faith Healings and Tongues--- That all these gifts are still active today. I do not believe the Bible is literally inerrant, because I believe it must be that men do not worship it above God. I believe God's law is inherent, and can be observed by those outside of the church, and even discovered and witnessed. I believe in the Miracles of Genesis, and that God's Omnipotence is above my own understanding. I believe the morals set down by Christ and His Apostles are the law we must follow, and that the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament we must abstain from following. I believe every man, woman and child deserves a sentence of death, as described in the Mosaic law, and this is why Christ accomplished grace at the cross, for even disobeying the Sabbath---who is Christ---is a penalty worthy of death. I believe in the Old Liturgy and Hymns over newly created ones, save that the hymns have rich theology based in the Holy Prophecies of Christ. I believe the Rapture is at the 6th seal, as is prophesied by Christ and John. I believe that if I hold onto these beliefs, and never reject them, and all others taught by God through the Holy Scripture and Prophets and Saints, that I shall never see nor taste of death, and I shall never need suffer through the seven years of tribulation. I believe in laying no barriers to Baptism, save a confession that Jesus is the LORD, that He raised, and a confession of the Trinity. I believe true salvation is evidenced by a deep desire to Fear God's name, and walk in His commandments. I believe in the Fruit of the Spirit, Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Gentleness, Self Control, Goodness and Faithfulness are gifts from God, and come from no other source but through God, and are the evidence of the faith. I believe that I am a sinner, guilty of capital punishment and therefore guilty of hellfire, and so need God's grace to return unto Him, and walk a perfect walk with an unstained conscience. This is the list of beliefs one must have to be a member of the Church of Philadelphia.
B. K. Neifert 