Registrating primal urges (impulse response)

 All this is the exertion of will, which I consider to be mechanical, a process of the intellect. Can you know yourself through these means through these mechanical means? All effort, mechanical or of the will, is habit-forming. Through the forming of habit you may be able to create a certain state, achieve a certain ideal which you may consider to be yourself, but as it is the result of an intellectual effort or the effort of the will, it is wholly mechanical and hence not true. Can this process yield the comprehension of yourself, of what you are?

Then there is the other state, which is spontaneous. You can know yourself only when you are unaware, when you are not calculating, not protecting, not constantly watching to guide, to transform, to subdue, to control; when you see yourself unexpectedly, that is, when the mind has no preconceptions with regard to itself, when the mind is open, unprepared to meet the unknown.

If your mind is prepared, surely you cannot know the unknown, for you are the unknown. If you say to yourself, "I am God", or "I am nothing but a mass of social influences or a bundle of qualities" if you have any preconception of yourself, you cannot comprehend the unknown, that which is spontaneous.

So spontaneity can come only when the intellect is unguarded, when it is not protecting itself, when it is no longer afraid for itself; and this can happen only from within. That is, the spontaneous must be the new, the unknown, the incalculable, the creative, that which must be expressed, loved, in which the will as the process of intellect, controlling, directing, has no part. Observe your own emotional states and you will see that the moments of great joy, great ecstasy, are unpremeditated; they happen, mysteriously, darkly, unknowingly. When they are gone, the mind desires to recreate those moments, to recapture them, and so you say to yourself: "If I can follow certain laws, form certain habits, act in this way but not in that, then I shall have those moments of ecstasy again".

                       ~ J Krishnamurti Ommen 1st Public Talk 4th August, 1938

Poetry is language. Art can be abstract. Philosophy branches from both. There is no valid argument against a breach of philosophy that uses language no matter its type (of philosophy). There is both good and bad related to each other. That alone is the main premise to anything rated as philosophical or not. I have never heard of Plato’s reasoning negating Poetry. Philosophy is intended to be good and to offer life's replacements in place of history as time moves forward. We are philosophically driven by this need. So much a body biologically starves without eating. Our human consumption of philsophical inquiry is a curiosity rooted in it. The quality of philosophy comes as it goes. Language if mastered is timeless whether or not poetry is made as fluidly is another question entirely.  

Perhaps what Plato argued has to do with presenting aligned ideological consumption of empirically validational style, pragmatic data, that can only be verified. Poetry if factual is made on this pretense. That experience, all human experience is told through a lens. Maybe it is the focal point? But, I argue however the time alotted to us - makes life a play meant to be brought into langauge. The movement of poetry is a matter of timeless action.

- Marco Almeida ©️ 2025