Ruminating on the Curtain Call

I’m more prone to a final exit in blaze; fire
although I’m not discounting the chill, the slow ice
but here’s a paradox – I love the cold and freeze:
my vapor breath, and solitude’s charm and quick pierce
more than the humid beach, and sweaty, prattling mass –
a house on the bone-rattling alabaster peak
I seek, more than a villa leading to the sea,
but fate to man is hardly a soft, sweet exchange –
I’m more prone to a final exit in blaze; fire.

© Nitin Lalit Murali (2018)

Protected by Copyscape

4 responses

    • I didn’t write this thinking of myself honestly. But if you interpreted it like that, it’s fascinating, and changing my ideas about interpretation being close to the text. I took inspiration from Fire and Ice by Robert Frost, and then brought myself into the picture. I still haven’t gotten down to Aristotle or Plato. I finished Aurelius, and some existentialism, and I’m interspersing it with some light reading like Gillian Flynn. I actually like her, though I’m not sure many will agree.

      • My Aristotle/Plato analogy was a little trivial! I guess it came from that fact that Plato goes in one direction and Aristotle goes in another: e.g. Plato – we are born with all knowledge and it must be drawn out; Aristotle – we are born with nothing… hence two different sorts of teachers – Aristotle: sit down, shut up and listen while I push knowledge into you brain, and Plato: so, what do you think of this? Let me draw it out. Democrats/Republicans; hot and cold; it goes on and on. There’s only ever been two philosophers – Plato and Aristotle. Or maybe just one philosopher: Socrates. All the rest (in my opinion) just fiddle around with the odd little bit they got out of them…

      • Wow. I think it’s fascinating and I guess you may right. I’m not sure about the tabula rasa concept, because you have very young children making complex moral decisions, which in turn means that morality is innate, and so knowledge must be innate too and drawn out. The question is how? Or are you born with little knowledge and cognitively evolve which is basically a middle road philosophy. But if you cognitively evolve, and the growth of technology is proof of that, then bodily evolution must also be true. We are definitely more immune to diseases than we were thousands of years ago. But none of this explains the one missing link which is unnerving: The universe could not have come into being by chance, and so, either this is just a simulacrum of true reality or God exists. I hope I’m not straying too much. Thanks for this, it’s brilliant and mind blowing.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: