God Poems: The Spirit of the Word: essay by Matthew Riley

 

God Poems: The Spirit of the Word

by Matthew Riley

 

 Are not all things poetry? Poetry of motion, color, sound, form, feelings, emotions, ideas. Then the poet is a recorder of all things within a single human experience, using the senses to record experience from an internal perspective. How he or she perceives reality through an individual and unique mind, heart, and circumstance.

Maybe we should state now that a poet is not just a recorder, if so, we could say a poet is just providing news, an inventory, a science devoid of human intuition and creativity. So let us say the poet is a recorder of a single human experience whose aim is to perfect the expression of human experience with words. I think of the wonderful poem by Tomas Tranströmer, which ends, Words, words, but no language.

Where do we begin to discuss the use of words in the current era? We can go way back to the Enlightenment or even further, but I will start with the advent of modern linguistic thought, but maybe not even that far back. For the sake of your time and to stay focused on the matter of this essay, I will stick to one linguist who shaped the argument of words, and therefore all modern thinking, Jacques Derrida.

My thesis will lack nuance. I will not go back and re-read my university assignments from thirty years ago. You, my audience are free to add insight, argument, or constructive criticism of my memory or aim.

In the most general sense, Derrida’s argument focused on the concepts of ‘presence’ and led to what he coined the Deconstruction of a text. He argued that any single word only takes on meaning in context to the words surrounding it. The classic example being the dictionary. One looks up a word and comes to its meaning by reading all the words used to define it. One then must arrive at a meaning based on the knowledge of all other words in context to the definition. As you look up the meaning of each word that comprises the definition of the original word, you will find more words in context to each word in the original definition.

Invariably, what he argues is that words are a sort of virus, lacking presence, which replicates toward a de-evaluation of meaning. If the single word itself does not have meaning within its own value, not relying on the text, or context, of other words, the word does not have real presence, or real meaning or value. He then moved on to the premise that words are only a tool for manipulation, and hence, he arrives at Deconstruction.

Why does this discussion on the minutiae of words have relevance today. One could say that it forms the basis of the social experiment we currently find ourselves participating in. I would add that it was a convergence of many other thought trends which find their roots in the philosophies and literature of Nietzsche, or those fun-loving guys, Camus and Sartre, among others.

As a young person looking to form ideas separate and distinct from the cultural norm, these ideas can feel liberating and make for great late night coffee discussions. Unfortunately, I tended to have these conversations with myself.

From a religious or spiritual perspective, I can say that all these fine and thoughtful gentlemen are describing something that was first told way, way, back, at the beginning. You may remember it happened in the Garden of Eden and culminated in the separation of man from God.

From a spiritual perspective, one could argue that the presence of the Word is God himself. We could say from a Western cultural perspective that linguistics really began when God instructed Adam to name the animals. The Word handed down from God to man to create organization, thought, and constructive society.

In fact, the influence of ancient religious texts is so ingrained in our society, I would say in our very DNA, that to oppose their presence, as Derrida himself likes to point out, is to affirm their very reality. Another way of saying this from a God Poem perspective, is to say that playing Derrida advocate, is to affirm the reality of Presence in the word, and therefore, from a God perspective, the reality of God. If I am not convincing yet, let me then say the reality of God in a Western Cultural, Societal, perspective.

And yet we do not always feel the presence of our words, our poems can disappoint us. They can be used to manipulate, deceive and lie. As a poet, as a poet who has fine-tuned his or her intuitive capacity, you may have had those moments, maybe fleeting, maybe long-lasting, where the moment hits you, the presence of your words, the joy of inspiration and craft. It’s hard to deny the moment, the presence you feel. And why then do we not always feel the eureka, why is it so fleeting and why do we know that words can lie and disappoint?

God gave Adam the authority to the name the animals, he did not give him authority of the Word. The separation from presence, as Derrida describes, was described centuries before him, centuries before Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus. And so, we have a snake in the garden, many snakes in the garden of the world. We continue to re-intellectualize, to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil, so that the nuance of our intellectualness can try our best to hide the apple.

Oh, the frustration of free will, Dadaism, surrealism, modernism, existentialism, minimalism, to just break free from our very DNA, be truly unique and original. That is what we crave deep down. To stand in place and say I am here, I am unique, set apart but whole, hear and understand my suffering, my joy.

Alright, I am a bad poker player. I tend to reveal my cards too soon and I may lose the table. If you are so inclined, please stick around, I could be bluffing, or not.

Before we focus on free will, I will move back to Deconstruction. Derrida belittles the Spirit of the Word, denying its presence or meaning, putting the entirety of a text into question. What then is the motive of the author behind the text? In Derrida’s view, we do not read the text for what it is trying to state in the affirmative, but what it is trying to deny in the negative. Derrida is stating that the truer presence of the text is in what is left out, or at the very least, what must be considered in the total presence of the text. In essence, the author is a liar using words to manipulate an audience and is only revealing a partial reality. Deconstruction is affirming the negative and disputing the positive affirmation of the text. So, all you dead guys are liars and manipulators.

Of course I am speaking of the Western Canon. I do not deny the brilliant and positive achievements of authors from all cultures around the globe, nor do I deny the many voices that were left out of the Canon for dubious and even sinful reasons. I do believe the Canon should continue to grow and blossom from the voices of today in the same egalitarian spirit of poetry itself. I am still waiting for my letter from the Nobel. Native Americans, German and Irish Americans, could celebrate my victory with a parade! We must keep a sense of humor.

What I question is the value of denying the legitimacy of the Western Canon in that it denies the legitimacy of the Spirit itself, ingrained in our individual and Societal DNA, a DNA which built the foundations of Westen Society from the first words of Adam, from the apple which separates us from the presence which Derrida denies, but gives order and value to the struggles of all people, not just the stodgy dead guys.

Inherit in Derrida’s argument for Deconstruction, is the idea, mentioned earlier, that the individual word is a sort of virus, only replicating itself and lacking presence. I find this idea interesting and do not deny some validity in the argument.

Let us imagine that you are employed and one of your duties is to manage and take care of the office copy machine, to keep it stocked with paper and toner for the management of the office staff. A co-worker hands you an original document and asks you to make 1,000 copies. They need this work completed asap. You remember that you replaced the toner just a few days back, so you begin the copy process by placing the original document on the glass and insert the number 1,000. You notice around the 400^th copy the print is beginning to fade slightly, by the 700^th copy it is beginning to become hard to read. You, in charge of the copy-machine, either choose to replace the toner and restore the bold and sharp print of the original document or you let it play out until the copies become unreadable. In this analogy, the original document is the Spirit of the Word, you are mankind, choosing to replace the toner or not, and the paper and printing machine is the virus, the replication of the Word losing Spirit to the virus, the replication process. Now if Derrida, or other fine theorists of his ilk, oversaw the copy machine, the last 300 copies would be unreadable, wasted paper without any trace of the original document.

In fact, I would argue that Derrida’s Deconstruction, as I have pointed out earlier, is just another, lesser, faded, replication of the original truth of the presence, or Spirit of the Word. The presence was lost to us near the beginning, and it was perfectly illustrated from the very beginning of the Western Canon and used repeatedly by the stodgy dead men who he argued were not legitimate. Derrida is the same, not different, the only difference is he chooses not to replace the toner. The purpose of mankind is to replace the toner when it runs out, to maintain the Spirit of the Word.

This is all good for propping up academic institutions, for a type of empty validation, but they are giving their students food without nutrition. Replicating an idea, in faded and confusing form, which cannot be perfected, for the continuance of admission.

In this cultural worldview the original source was randomness, chance, or possibly that the Spirit was not of pure substance. Where I differ from this worldview is the notion that mankind can create an original source. Or that the future is purer, brighter, than the beginning. As I will get to shortly, this is an impossibility as science can attest. Mankind can renew the original source to the degree that he is creating from the Spirit. Otherwise, we are replicated, diminishing, discarding the value of the pure substance. Consumerism without thought or Spirit.

 I think of men and nature of old, as told through the Spirit. Men of supernatural strength and size, men of ages in the hundreds, prophets and seers, plants, straight from the ground that could cure and heal, not through synthesis and artificial propagation. Their healing properties closer in age to the original source, the Garden. And miracles, yes miracles. To say the ancients were not intelligent is to deny the statement that all we know is from standing on the backs of giants.

But what about the poet, the creative, the artist and what about their validation? Now let us move back to free will. I thought of a video clip by another poet that had great insight into the topic. The poet is the rapper KRS-1. Maybe you have seen the clip. He speaks of consciousness in a way that defines the divide. He asks the interviewer what happens if you close your mouth and nose long enough. As he states, you lose consciousness. You are separated from consciousness, the presence. He posits that we live in consciousness, and we are conscious beings. Now how does the man of science describe the same event? He would describe it as a loss of oxygen to the brain. A transference of a chemical reaction, or lack thereof.

In a way, both KRS-1 and the man of science are correct. The difference is the worldview, the Spirit or science? One, science, is a negation of the Spirit, constantly seeking to define the Spirit thereby limiting the possibilities of what the Spirit can do or achieve. The creative mind, KRS-1, does not limit the Spirit, it celebrates the Spirit and views it in an affirmative worldview.

Creation has a Creator. Basic science concepts also prove this reality. Cause and effect are one, but there are others. To deny the truth of this is to deny the very fabric of scientific theory. The Creator, the Spirit of the Word, is the ultimate creative force. If we are made in his image we are to create, to be creative, to carry the Spirit of the Word into consciousness as a celebration and positive force in his creation.

In Ecclesiastes, we learn there is nothing new under the sun. And here lies the frustration of the ego, of the science, of a man.  It’s the acknowledgement that all matter, all atoms, were here from the original creation. Matter changes or is adapted or synthesized, rearranged, but it is all the matter from the beginning of what we call time.  The ego says I created this, I made this, my dedication, loyalty, love, insight, experience, and knowledge made or created this new thing. In a sense, you did, that is the play of things, innocence, even innocence with a sophistication brought by your experience. But is it truly new in the sense that you created new matter, new atoms, something completely unique? The answer is and will be throughout the end of time, no. We get better at adapting, synthesizing, but it is all from the original material. These adaptations can be used to cure a human being but also to kill a million human beings. When we employ the Spirit in science we can stay on the right side of creation.

The Spirit of creation says, children of the Spirit, play with these things I have given you, celebrate, even in your sorrow, celebrate the creation, even with your darkest words, celebrate the creation.

The Spirit is like a loving parent that sets you, the child, down in a playground, never leaves you alone but watches proudly from some corner bench. Protecting but also releasing, releasing you to play, to learn, to grow. Grieving with you when you grieve but reassuring you all is good in the end, this is still a part of the growing, the growing and celebration.

The stages of the Spirit are varied and unique. I will for the sake of my argument list them something like: Innocence, Experience, Surrender & Repentance, Humility, and back to Innocence through wisdom. I am convinced that almost everyone breathing today would go through all these stages if they could live long enough, in years of centuries and not decades. We all get trapped in one or the other, travelling back and forth between the early stages because we fear surrender and repentance beyond all. What if the Spirit is not there, what if humility does not come and I never arrive at wisdom? Is the Spirit there to walk me through to the other side, to help me learn to play again in the Garden, through all my arrogance, can I learn to play again?

I would urge the poet to trust the intuition, the intuition that speaks to you at times and helps you to feel the presence of the Word. That is free will. The free choice to peer through the fixed Garden and feel, intuit, the eternal, before we lost the authority of the Word, losing its full presence in the first act of linguistic science, after the apple, when we named the animals.

My call to the poet in us all, do not join the denier, the negation of the Spirit of the Word, do not be a theorizer, a Derrida in making. Play and enjoy the only real free choice.

What Derrida does not believe, but billions of people know to be true in their hearts, is that a single word, the signifier and the signified, does contain presence through the Spirit of the Word. I will name some of these words, love, evil, mercy, justice. In Derrida’s view, these words, lacking presence, have no real value, they can be used to justify all circumstances.

 Now Derrida can never prove his argument. If the word lacks presence, then all of creation lacks presence. If all of creation lacks presence, then order and truth is a man-made construct. Science would argue that truth is a man-made construct for the propagation of the species. If there is no order, all is random, a lucky accident of chemical combinations. But if all is random then so is Derrida’s argument, coming from his mind which is just a random interaction of dancing neurons. He cannot put forth his argument in the affirmative when his argument is the very definition of randomness and chaos. I put my faith elsewhere, in the Spirit of the Word and the billions who feel the Spirit of the Word in their lives. Who feel these words have presence and value.

There is a current media figure who raises an interesting point on the subject of the Word. I will not say I agree with his entire argument or all his claims, but he creates a path to view the Word from both a faith and scientific paradigm. He is a psychologist, professor, author, Jungian, and as I said, ugh, media figure. His name is Jordan Peterson.

As an academic of the word, of stories, of mythologies, as a Jungian philosopher, he understands the intimate way that stories influence our psychology, our social structures. As a researcher he sees and collects and analyzes the patterns of the stories of mankind. Just as a statistician or logistician analyzes data to see the whole totality of the picture, Peterson does the same with the stories of mankind’s historical development. The argument he tends to make is that the stories of mankind are a part of our physical biology, placed in the strands of our DNA in the same way we find ourselves with blue eyes, two arms and two legs. The Spirit of the Word, the Creator, programmed us to know intuitively, and physically, of his Presence. I believe Peterson has felt the conclusion to this story but still finds it difficult, as a life-long academic, to fully surrender to the truth, although he has come closer and gets closer still. Much like the Pharisees that found it too difficult to give up their control to the Spirit of the Word, Peterson knows what it might do to his credibility within the great institution of science.

What do I speak of? I am speaking of the Spirit of the Word becoming human. The Spirit of the Word becoming human to reconcile us to spiritual life, to presence. And yes, I am talking about Jesus Christ, the divine human who has reconciled us to the Spirit of the Word. Peterson has felt this truth and the profoundness of this realization brought him to tears. It is interesting to note, that his hero, Carl Jung, was asked near the end of his life if he believed in God. His response, I do not believe, I know.

So, I mentioned the Pharisees, those keepers of the law. This seems to be the appropriate space to take a quick detour into the Spirit of the Law. These topics are as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago.

One reason the spirit of the Word, the authority of the Word, came into the world was to confront the law, a law which often lacks the Spirit of the Word, thereby lacking the spirit of the law. The law had and has again become what whomever wants it to become, whether an elite body politic or a cultural trend.

We find this today when obvious acts of evil, physical aggression, or unchecked bureaucracy become reduced to theory and science. In other words, whose lawyer knows how to play the game with more dexterity, flexibility, and intellectualism. As defined, “The spirit of the law is the underlying purpose or intent behind a law, as opposed to the letter of the law, which is literal wording.” When the law loses the Spirit of the Word it falls victim to Deconstruction, to the science of words written or spoken in a more influential manner than an opponent. It no longer matters whether the “spirit of the law” is with an opponent, if the Deconstruction of the law is demonstrated to a jury as intellectually superior or more influential, often to a jury that is intimidated by the new Religion of Law, the letter of the law will most often win. Much like the Pharisees who came to dominate the authority of the law to their own benefit, today’s legal system, backed by governments of local, state, or national authority, have corrupted the Spirit of the Word, thereby corrupting the spirit of the law. The individual is lost in a sea of intellectual interpretation beyond the rationale, beyond common-sense, left victim to the passing whims of whatever new cultural trend, whatever new corporate greed, or corrupt local official.

How does the individual reclaim his sanity, his sense of purpose and his sense of self in a corrupt world? It was written long ago, honor your parents, do not kill, do not cheat, do not steal, do not lie, do not long for what others have, and last, but very important, to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Of course there are others, and as a Christian, they are most important. I would argue that most anything else beyond these direct and common-sense commandments are superfluous to the Spirit of the Word and the Spirit of the Law. Anything which is superfluous is prone to corruption and easily exploited to the benefit of the board.

I was born in 1968. I am on the older end of Generation X. Babies of the Vietnam War and the moon landing. Between the opposites of pessimism and hope, hope for a better future. We were born at the tail end of innocence, feeling it but also feeling it slowly erode. We were stretched so thin that we are the generation who came to believe in everything and nothing. And this is where we failed. We failed because we came to believe that believing in everything was a good thing.

As we’ve grown older, I think many of us now see the flaw in our belief, or non-belief. Let me repeat, believing in everything is the same as believing in nothing. If you have been paying close attention to the theme of my essay, you may notice a pattern here. Am I not describing, once again, the concept of Deconstruction?

I said we were born at the end of innocence. Why? Coming out on the winning side of World War II, we were the recipients of the spoils of war, suburbs, fast cars, rock and roll, plenty of beer…Hot Summer Nights on the Radio.

Vietnam, assassinations, Nuclear War, later HIV, were the things we tried desperately to forget rolling down the road on the Highway to the Danger Zone.

We were also born into the counterculture. Too young to have experienced it, and those of us born into the suburbs were isolated from its influence, but it was there and permeated the general culture. The concepts of free love, individual freedom, communal living, while not shared, by and large, by our parents, still percolated in the atmosphere of culture and had an influence on those born during its peak.

This movement believed strongly in individual freedom, opposed authority at all levels, dropped out on LSD among other drugs and hallucinogens, and out of these ideas came a sense of a new spirituality.  A spirituality which quickly came to reject God as a personal and separate entity.

Masquerading as a spiritual movement, it was, in effect, a social experiment. Why did it fail? It failed because it was empty at its core.  The idea of the movement, from a spiritual perspective, was that we, individually, as part of humanity, are all a part of God, that God is us, made up of all our individualities, freedoms, ideas, and thoughts.

I have addressed this already but will bring it back home. If God does not reside outside of us, separate and eternal, then the truth of the Ideal, of the Spirit of the Word, does not exist, for how can one, or a group, prove their ideal to be of real substance when it resides within a confined, limited, and random mind or mindset. Once again, we are billions of people with our own thoughts and opinions, and without an external, objective force, a truth, we are nothing more than survival of the fittest. The winner is who shouts loudest, who has the biggest gun, who can intellectualize the best. Truth cannot be proved if it does not reside outside the human mind. Ideals of love, evil and justice become arguments made for the perpetuation of the species and nothing more.

All common-sense goes out the window, and we often go out of our minds. In full disclosure, I have many times. I owe what held me together to my parents, their faith, their sense of hope in a future where all our tears will be wiped away. It is still in the common sense of belief and faith which will restore our collective sanity. The Spirit of the Word is without end, it calls to us and grieves when we turn away, but it never leaves, it is patient, loving, forgiving, and ultimately home for all who choose. I am lucky to have been born on solid ground; many were not and have suffered the consequences.  

I remember as a child the park merry-go-round. You hop on, your buddy spins the thing with all his might. The centrifugal force pulls you harder to the edges. You learn the force is a little calmer in the center, so you try to move to the middle and hold on. Ah yes, you can handle this now. And then your arms and hands tire, and the spinning feels faster, and your stomach is about to lose. Eventually, and the whole idea of the fun, is to go flying off the go-round to the laughter of your buddy. And then his turn and your revenge.

So much like life.

We could say that getting on the merry-go round is innocent, learning to move to the middle is experience. Knowing when to stay off for good is surrender and repentance is knowing that it is not nice or funny to see your friend break his arm. Then humility, and the world becomes wide open. You realize and feel the world, the universe, is very much not about you, it is about something much larger. The merry go round can feel like the whole world when you’re on it, and when you step off, the dizziness goes away, and you know in your heart you are not getting back on. This is wisdom, and a return to innocence. The world slows down, the days feel whole and the seasons return. You look out of yourself and feel creation moving in a pattern you can recognize, notice the signs. The Spirit of the Word is guiding you. The merry-go-round is full of transactional relationships which can seem real in the spinning of your life. But what you need are relationships that transform. Relationships that help you to find the creation once again. To help you see and feel the patterns that guide.  

We can ignore the order or chaos of the argument, go about living, or recording, these ideals from the internal perspective as if they do not matter to the recording. My question is not to ask whether you have settled the Spirit debate in your own heart and mind, but whether you feel that your words are pulled toward bringing order to chaos, love and truth to evil and darkness? Do you, as a poet, intuitively yearn to be understood, and in the understanding, bring order through the communion of understanding through the Spirit?

I…I…and I. There are many of those in this essay. There is a difference between the I of ego and the I of the Spirit. One is a sinner, as I am, the other is a conduit of guidance to follow, share, reflect, and work, as hard is it, towards humility, flying back and forth from experience to humility until the final day. The desire is to be close enough to the truth that you know it when you are there, you feel it as in those rare moments of intuitive grace, but it will be glorified, magnified to a degree that no one can truly understand. The peace which surpasses all understanding.

But never mistake the I for anything other than glorious. Made in the Spirit image, wanting you to have a personal relationship with the Spirit, to create the unique I of the Spirit and only asking for the personal relationship and acknowledgement of your creation from the Spirit, the ultimate Creator.

Let me bring this essay back to the beginning to close it out. If you remember, I started with a definition of poetry and what a poet is. Why did I title this essay God Poems? It is stated in the first paragraph, in the first line. Are not all things poetry? I am making a case for the poet in us all to reconcile within ourselves what our poetry hopes to achieve. And I will add that a poet is not just one who writes poems but how one views the world and chooses to live life.

I do not deny that there is a craft to poetry, but I would add that poetry is so much more than an academic exercise in craft. One can choose to focus on the academic virtues of craft. There is always the threat of losing the Spirit of the Word. I do believe that the poet in us all needs, at some point of choosing, to truly think on the questions that I raise, to decide how long you will choose to create works, your life, that meander through the jungle of theory, craft, criticism, randomness, empiricism, and on, or will you peer back into the Garden to seek the eternal Spirit of the Word. We all carry the God Poem inside us, but only through the guidance of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit.  

It does not require a grief as deep as mine to take you back to the beginning, to see this existence for what it is, a training ground. The world is here for us to learn. To learn that love is the only answer. And love is only real through the eternal spirit of the Word.

The Father provided tough love when it was necessary. He civilized us. He then sacrificed himself to our pain when it was necessary. And he did this so we can be reconciled to the Spirit of the Word.

Write your God Poems. It is so little to sacrifice your honest words, the intuitive truth and knowledge of your existence. And please do so without the threat or fear of Criticism, the denier of your truth. A real poet knows that the union of two souls through a poem is only meaningful if your words are from the Spirit. All else is vanity.