repackaged theology

lost in the
ontological discrepancies
of being
as applied to the
pursuit of defining
is
as a state
rather than
a uniformic isentrope
where objects of
inanimaticy are related
to the intimate
internality of
dissolutions by way
of inauthenticity

turning an inward eye
onto the false meanings
of contextualization
foregoing the
abstractions of discourse
as applied to
the state of
humans being without
understanding what
it means to be
while being nothing
impossible to excise
the false obligations
of heidegger’s weakly
philosophized theology
while chasing our tails
for meaning
rather than simply
allowing ourselves
to just be

repackaging religion
in abstraction
to give purpose to
the meaninglessness that
is the building block
of the herd mentality
seeking authenticity
in nesting dolls
just smaller and smaller
versions of the same
carbon copied scripture
using multiplication tables
in place of true
algebraic intuitions
to simplify the
humanity in
infinite horizons

6 thoughts on “repackaged theology

  1. Have you studied Heidegger? I don’t know much about him.
    So ANYhow, if you know how to roll coins, the I-Ching is eerie and a mighty fine example of math being useful in connection to spirit/ spirituality. Don’t knock it til U understand how to “read” Chinese. It’s fun. You’d like the language as a poet because it’s pictures that connect to historical figures, and patterns, that play out like histiry repeating itself, but always changing and not stuck. Jung tried it and found it irrefutable magic… unexplainable. He was kinda interesting with his shadow stuff, doncha think?
    Anyhow I’m not trying to sell U nuthin’ and I’m not a “religious” person or a witch so… that being said.
    I like your poems still. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s took my a long time to fully grasp it. It can be very dramatic and sometimes drama is the last thing a person needs. But if you find someone to show you how to “do it” and then you experiment on your own, it’s a surprising “oracle” altho, I wouldn’t go around acting like a prophet with it as many people attempt to shamu others… I dunno, but I think you’ll be intrigued (in a good way) and it’s not without science… I’m rambling. I apologize. The Wilhem/Baynes interpretation is the one you want. It’s forward is written by Jung. The footnotes make relationships to western thought so you have a kind of guide to compare contrast. If you ever wanna talk about it, lemme know! But I won’t press it. I leave it to you. And if you decide it a load of crap, so be it.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I’m not sure “belief” has anything to do with the I-Ching. It’s something else. But it may be too convoluted for your tastes. It was a challenge until it became easy to understand. I found out I was reading the lines backwards for a good year so nothing made sense and I’d just about given up, but I’d seen a roommate of mine do it so I wanted to know what she was doing. She gave me a really quick demonstration which didn’t give me much to go on and then I found a two dollar copy of the book at a thrift store with scribbled notes in the back where someone left a few clues. But honestly, I have no idea what I’m telling you to embark on.
            I guess your poem moved me to request that you remain open to possibilities. But why?
            Why am I wanting you to do this?
            Maybe the I-Ching isn’t at all what you need and you’re being super nice to me about all this!
            All the same, I hope you have a good day of poem writing. Your work always makes me think or feel something. Thanks for that.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to m ennenbach Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s