Bulverism II

And now I come to say,
My beloved Bartholomew,
That your Bulverism has one more bout
With my witness, it's true.

For you said, "I presuppose
"That knowledge must have God."
I prove it here, that it must be so
As solid as a rock.

For you presuppose knowledge can exist
Without God, yet I find this quite specious.
Then you chalk up my knowledge
To psychological stems

Of past experience and Freudian totems.
And class, and religion, and family it's true...
Yet, my bigoted rival, how came this knowledge to you?
For if it be based on a presupposition

Why are rich men deluded to think this world a vision?
Truly even this makes me doubt---
Why not you, you scurrilous case of gout? 
And that word, I had not known, had come into my mind

You mental twine, tangled in a mess of lies...
If my word's not given by God
Then how did I this word find?
More importantly, Bartholomew,

Here is the last question I give---
Are you so sure the material world
Is as based as it is?
Rich, genius men do this doubt in thought;

So again I tell you, Blackguard,
How can there be knowledge without God?

Bulverism

A name which has no meaning
A philosophy which can find none;
If given the proof of God
It shall say, "No, knowledge, I shall shun."

For at the end of its existence
It questions the very truth
Of our objective reality
And counts all facts as rude.

For, I ask you, Bartholomew, 
What knowledge can there be?
For you said knowledge doth not prove
That God's existence can be seen?

Yet, what of the chemical which doth make a scent?---
Which has changed in my nostril?---
The smell of onion made different?---
Or the sight of woman, doth this also prove

That upon my cornea, there is no way to view
What is real, and no way to truly know?
For that is the question, you have to answer my
Nasty and unworthy foe.

Does objective reality exist within the sense?
The answer is, without God, no, it truly can't.
For the eye would just be neurons firing in a vat
Of cholesterol, which makes the nose a synaptic trap.

So smells are different from man to man
And maybe tastes are, too; and maybe sight
And maybe sound, and maybe all things pulled.
Therefore, without God how can knowledge be?

For without Him to make things proven
How can knowledge, knowledge truly be?
Yet, if two men find through their senses
The same thing that makes it true,

If it is witnesses who've found it
Then God by witnesses is here proved.
For if there is reality, and things which we all share,
There must be a God to make it so,

And here is why, my dear:

Because the presupposition I hold
Is based on concrete science
Of philosophy so auld
I will give you a reason pliant:

For if all things come to doubt
The material world we know---
Which it soon comes to be---
We must have reason to share what's told.---

Or else be trapped in our own conscience.
For if all things, material or not,
Be presupposed you say,
Then that presupposition is predicated on

An objective world you say.
Yet, what if in the near future
That objective world we'd doubt?
Then it would need relate back to God

That is what I am all about.
In order for knowledge to exist
It takes even a leap of faith.
For knowledge is borne by witnesses

Yet, by witnesses there must still be grace.

Thus we come to the end of the song
And that is what Bulverism is---
It is men who deny the facts
Based on their belief that aught is hid

From the truth, so they can never truly discover.
Men need, rather, be, the truths' wedded,
Sultry lover.

An Analysis of Shakespearean Sonnets 1 – 126

One day I intend to do a line by line analysis of the poem. Since everyone ought to study one epic poem in their life---study it intensely, knowing each nuance, each line, each rhythm---The Shakespearean sonnets will be my subject.

However, upon reading them, I was fully immersed in the notion that Shakespeare was singing about a gay lover. I had begun reading the first 126 lines with that in mind. However, I don't think that's an appropriate reading, and I'd like to explain some of my reasons why.

For one thing, the beginning of the poem seems to insinuate that the subject being carried up was something like a son to Shakespeare, and that this individual had died, or was wounded, while courting a woman. With this in view, it makes a lot of the passages more clear, rather than more opaque. And further, if we account the latter portion of the Sonnets to the subject's mother---the Black Lady---we begin to bring a tapestry of what the poems are about. Hamnet. Whom, probably, was Shakespeare's son to a Concubine, and being encouraged to find a wife and bear a son, he had gotten himself into trouble like Romeo. There's one sonnet in particular where Hamnet is described as Shakespeare's muse in all of his work. And if it's a gay lover, I don't think one can find Romeo and Juliet from that, but rather the plot structure of the first few Sonnets seem to tell a Romeo type story of failed courtship which was fatal.

Further on, there's some references to Shakespeare being a "Slave" to the subject of the poem. Some requite this as gay love, but I find it more probable that Shakespeare is using a device of irony to say that he was his Concubine's Son's slave. Which is more in line, that the adoration---and reference to Hamnet's fair skin and Cheeks---seem to be references to his availability for courtship and the wrong committed against him.

There are some twenty passages I've found that directly relate to death, that the subject has died, and then the poem begins to fracture into two distinct characters. Love and then the Character of Hamnet who becomes a symbol of love. The character, Love, is possibly a reference to the fame of his poem. If Love should die, then nobody would read the Epitaph of Hamnet's. If Love keeps men reading the poems, then love lives even after Shakespeare's death. Then Hamnet, in turn, lives on through Shakespeare's poem. As there are two distinct individuals being talked about in the poem. Separated. There is Hamnet who died. And then the figure of Love, whom Hamnet becomes a symbol for. And the reading of the poem is what preserves the love.

There's several hints that Shakespeare believes the poem will be skewed by the "Sluttishness of Time"; that is, somehow he could foresee the Logos being skewed, and then maybe this faulty interpretation becoming canon. I believe Shakespeare had some inclination that the poem was going to be interpreted as erotic, when he never intended it to be erotic. As the poem's subject is Love. The character in the poem whose cheeks are often referred to is dead or near death, while Love lives on and is continued to be enjoyed for as long as his poem is read, and the epitaph is read. As, the poem several times calls itself an epitaph for the individual in the poem. It is a love poem of a Father's devotion to his Son who died unfairly, when courting a woman. There can be no other interpretation, for the poem is cognizant of its being skewed toward eroticism---several times the poem is self aware that it could be misrepresented or misunderstood. And it might even seem inappropriate for a father to write such a thing about his deceased son. And Shakespeare is cognizant that Love itself could be misrepresented by the poem. It seems embarrassing, as a writer at that time was not prone to using such emotionality. 

However, let us look at the possibility of Shakespeare singing a homoerotic song. Then why refer to the subject having died so often? In the sonnets are some thirty references to death having already happened. Anywhere there is a slight hint of the poem becoming erotic, the next sonnet will bring one to bear with the truth that the poem is actually about Hamnet. Perhaps the "Slutishness of time" was precisely the erotic reading of the poem, that Shakespeare was subtly aware of being a possible rendering. It might have been indecent for a father to sing about his son that way, or the boy might have been commonly known to be of African descent. In either case, the poem is speaking of a Father's love, and his epitaph to his son who became the embodiment of love, having pursued a woman whom he was unequal with for the time's standard.

It is my imagination that Shakespeare was a good man, who loved his son, and when his son wanted to court the woman whom he chose, Shakespeare encouraged it, and this led to the unfortunate circumstance of a wound. Perhaps the sonnets were being written at the time of Hamnet's deathbed, which could be a heart-wrenching song of a father not knowing if his son will survive.

I've written copious amounts of work over the course of a day or two. It's not unlikely that Shakespeare had composed this entire piece in less than four or five days. So, it could have been written while Hamnet was on his deathbed, recovering from a wound he acquired from a failed romance. As the subject is the muse of all of Shakespeare's writing. I leave this off, as it is the interpretation that seems most in line with the subject. A father in the bargaining phase of grief, writing what is the world's best piece of literature.

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Illustrated. Crown Publishers, inc., 1975. Text.

My Rorschach Interpretation

26.

I'm not a homosexual, at all.
I really can't be homosexual;
In my dreams I make love to women
And am repulsed by men.

However, this primitive response
Is likely inspired by my watching the Jungle Book.
It imprinted on me from a young kid
And I had associated the activity of gathering
Water in a clay pot from the Jungle Book
As a feminine activity.
Displaying a preference for defined gender roles in society.
It is offensive for me to think that the appendage is a penis.
I can't bring myself to think that,
But rather, with the African theme, it is bone jewelry.

27. 

The general motif here is of the average individual.

28. 

I see Lucile Ball looking into a mirror.
A mirror response indicates narcissism---
While I'm unhappy about that, it is a trait of mine
To be selfish, which I'm working on.
It is also---if I'm interpreting the data correctly---
Indicative of a thoughtful and reflective personality.
However, I'm skeptical of that interpretation
And believe it to be on there to ease the egocentricity
Of people with severe Antisocial personality disorder---
I will interpret the card as having a strained relationship with my mother.
Not narcissism, though I have severe selfish streaks in me which I recognize.

The comical nature of Lucile Ball indicates I find my mother humorous,
Which I do. The Playboy Bunny reflects my pure attitude toward sex.
As, the only sexual image on any of the cards is reflected in the Playboy Bunny
Ears, which remind me of Lucile Ball about ready to do a Cancan---
As I probably also saw that imagery in one of the episodes of I Love Lucy at a young age.

29.

I see two elephants looking into a pool at the bottom of the card.
Not one elephant looking into a reflection, therefore it cannot be a mirror response.
They remind me of Dumbo, which is imprinted on me from my childhood
As a misfit who has always been singled out as being "Special";
Which is probably also where some of the narcissistic tendencies come from.
I see two distinct elephants.

30.

I see two Russian Dancers doing a Mazurka
Which is a form of Russian Peasant dance.
I've seen it many times in the movies
And have read about it in War and Peace---
Therefore my association with it comes from the Russian Novelist's
Description. Which is a celebratory dance;
And in that particular book it was a symbol
Of the Russian vigor winning freedom from the French.

31. 

I have the average response for this.

32. 

I see a unique item here, a New Mexican Gorge.
Particularly, I see a canyon of hoodoos.
And an "Angel" or "Palm Tree."
The Angel indicates a feeling of being falsely accused
Or being overly punished.
Why in New Mexico is probably from seeing imagery
Of its canyons and ridges in so many TV shows
It has imprinted on me.

33.  

I see a lot of the common imagery in this one, too.

34.

I see the common imagery in this.

35.

I see an old man in a helmet  
Who is sitting over a Dragon pelt.
It is very common imagery.
The beast at the bottom looks like a dragon
And I interpret the Dragon as being defeated
By the man in the helmet.
Probably indicating the strong Paternal
Bond I share with my dad.

36. 

As a whole, I have four common answers.
I have nine whole answers. Which indicates extremely high levels of creativity.
I have a few movement answers. Which indicates maturity of thinking.
I have a few color answers. Which the colors are usually calm or idyllic.
I have one mirror answer---which is an indication of narcissism, and I'm working on that. It also might express the strained relationship with my mother.
I have a few detail responses, which indicate a moderate level of alertness.
I have one sexual response, which the indication of the nature of it was a pure attitude toward sex, relating it to Playboy.

Epitaph

For those who wish to know aught Shakespeare's heart
One ought to know his Concubine gave him
A son, whose fair skin and beauteous cheeks
Were the song of one hundred twenty-six
Sonnets. Whom, encouraged to seek out love
Was wounded for it, and grew gravely ill
Until he had died, and Shakespeare would write
Hamnet's one hundred, twenty-six sonnet
Epitaph, to immortalize Hamnet's
Search for love. A boy, whom legally was
A slave, beloved by his father William;
Yet, the slutishness of time had warped it.
For, the Boy whose beauteous cheeks are here
Immortalized, he, his pursuit, is love.