John Burroughs,
a.k.a. Jesus Crisis, is a pacifist, poet, playwright, musician, composer, bibliophile, and seeker in Elyria, Ohio.
Co-founder (with Dianne Borsenik) of the monthly Lix and Kix Poetry Extravaganza and the annual winter wordfest known as Snoetry, John is also the
founding editor and publisher for Crisis Chronicles Press and a regular contributor to the Cleveland
Poetics and Ohio Poetry Association blogs. Since 2011 he has served as the OPA's webmaster pro tem.
John founded a loose association called Poets of Lorain County, under whose auspices he's hosted regular open mic and
featured poet events at the Avon Lake Public Library and the Lorain Arts Council's
737 Gallery, as well as the PoetryElyria series at Jim's Coffeehouse and Diner, the Scott M. Duncan
Photography studio and other venues in his hometown.
John's work has appeared on stages in four states, as well as in numerous journals, and he is the author of five poetry chapbooks:
8/23/2008 2:51 AM
chris wrote:
She might have been referring to the Old English meaning of the word which meant beautiful.. as well as luster or shine... in which case you can have beauty without substance...if your referring to an emotion or something... which she of course is not .
But this is like a Zen koan... I didn't know she wrote things like this... yikes...
Have fun .. carry on.. just interjecting my two cents worth into the fray... Reply to this
Nothing wrong with sheen...
But it's nothing without substance.
Reply to this
can sheen exist without substance?
Reply to this
Physically, perhaps no
Metaphorically, I think so
...at least without qualitative (or significant) substance
Why do some of today's "stars" come to mind?
Then we're back to how one defines "qualitative" or "significant." ;)
Reply to this
the way i read this poem, the sheen belongs to something of substance.
is she referring to THE sun, or speaking in metaphors? i think it's a metaphor.
heh. "stars", the sun, they can all be metaphors.
we're back to the perception and perceiving thingy again.
perhaps i'm a lunatic? :)
Reply to this
lunatic? nah... we're talking about the sun, not the moon.
And it is most definitely a metaphor. Then again, all things are, whether we intend them to be or not.
Reply to this
since we had the sun and stars in there, i thought i might as well introduce a moon too :)
i promise not to swear by it though, it's too inconstant.
are you getting all tao again? *grins*
Reply to this
The moonlight and the sunlight are actually the same. One's just reflected.
All in all is all they are.
Tao?
Wow and Ow, too... story of my life!
Reply to this
cobain was a science teacher eh?
i be
you be
we all be
so let's see.
Reply to this
Mais oui!
Reply to this
She might have been referring to the Old English meaning of the word which meant beautiful.. as well as luster or shine... in which case you can have beauty without substance...if your referring to an emotion or something... which she of course is not .
But this is like a Zen koan... I didn't know she wrote things like this... yikes...
Have fun .. carry on.. just interjecting my two cents worth into the fray...
Reply to this