Wow (Marvin Kirsh) wow!

My sentiments exactly! Anything that
crawls gets to meet the heel of my shoe
whether on or off my feet! Your poem had style.
Liked it a lot~

Becca

Dear Erin: I can also appreciate your feeling for other things. Socially we have a choice to relate to the struggling and suffering of other things or to view bluntly. It depends on how one relates to himself.
A word of you last poem 'Must I" also caught my eye about "Must I logic myself to death." Although I am very logical myself as a way to comunicate to the logical the phrase "it takes two to tango" is the key to the worlds problems, because the exact coreresponding meaning is true for all things from electrons on. But scientists,who study one thing first and then. try to build a model with two..electrons for example not only find this a herendous task, they have already constructed a theory for one electron which give results that match reality. In order to consider this original theory wrong is so beyond their insights-if it works, and the real truth is an entirely different slant, that in actuality is not as complicated because major parts of the complexities of defintion become "so-what", vanish to common sense instead of the very indirect and unnoticed belly button mathematics saying mathematically of "what is" that we already assume and take for granted when we ask questions. The labors in making these ideas are not lost as they are applicable to otherthings, but the problem is belly "button science" used to operate on nature. From this perspective, if looks in Nature magazine for example "I built a synthetic microbe in the lab" "I made a whole dog from an ear" though very complicated and requiring high genious, are the unrealized acts of the near intellectual impaired dumb. By the time they are though the two to tango, will leave one last man being beaten physically-on the receiving end of the science tango.Two plus two in one mind is 4, in many separate minds is four, but for instance Mark plus Harriet,Plus Ted, plus Jane ....plus time ..does not equal the same Mark plus Harriet plus Ted plus Jane.
The key is always how you relate to your self., but a near insurmountable wall in the sciences related to objectivity. I notice in the reviews about the fellow who solved the Pointcaire conjecture a year or two ago(he used formulas for heat propogation in the physical sciences to it)" all were against a wall" until....Another female mathematician after being shown a near civilization life time long problem, solved it easily in a month, from her speciality. But this hardly does not even approach the actual insight needed concerning orientation in general to all science and math..is exactly theoreticalizable in perspective,as either of these two difficult problems were solved, in the same way, "it takes two to tango way." I am not a genious myself..bright maybe, and some of the reasoning of these , though, in conception, maybe beyond me, is not hard to comment on, and even many are ulikely to understand or comprehend with the available communication media-takes nearly a thesis on the history of ideas, history itself. If I say the mating of enzymes or matching of DNA bases in genetics is exactly the same as the loves, affinities and avoidance, repulsions of living, there isnt any quick logical idea to "wrong" "not so", a far fetched idea, though from current perspective that could be true. Seeming to know so and exact logical connection are not the same either. When I read Russell..what can we really know? is something known automatically, mathematical or otherwise, I think of the insensitive, clods, I have encountered in life , the capacity for cruelity, and the world they must perceive and live in...maybe where Russell started...they cant be exactly different, must be a reasoning or perspective or experience problem, though my own feeling to me seem innate -I could not be any different , though there are times, I clouted guys when I got angry, stepped on bugs, bounced volley balls around on the sidewalk to torture ants, but still could hardly enjoy the suffering of others, would not wish it on anyone....where are the minds of people when they do these things, could not be so heartless and cruel all the time, I think no one is capable to think nothing of "badness" or incurring suffering to others, because it always sticks to their hands what they do-even a scientist who sacrifices animals (some even known to torture for research)..especially when it is all exactly futile/unnesessary with respect to useable results-hurts at one ends as it cures at the other, a waste of time that literally wastes time; all for naught. One would have to have somekind of first hand knowing/experience of evil to be callous to it or to be evil , and that is not true of everyone. Could even be carried down in families how they relate to each other the world. Is not there though from conscious reasoning as the route to its' eviction. But it always takes two.

Marvin

*cringe* I don't like spiders: been bit four times by brown recluse. I'd a killed 'em, too. Now daddy longleggeds, different thing entirely. I love them. I've heard that they are the most venomous, but their mouths are too small to bite humans. Good for us, eh? Title is attention grabbing, poem is tenderly remorseful and well written. Well done!

(((HUGS))) and love, Karla.

a very temder write-i am the same way -loved this

I'm happy to read that you are as I. I can't kill anything that is living. My pout is just like yours.
Susan