Ideaological vs. Emotional writing

Michael, to reply to your post about writing to capture society or influence, I think both are acceptable. My friend, who also writes, and I have spoken about poetry before because we have read highschool and college poetry and we came to the conclusion that much poetry serves only to invoke an emotion. In this poetry there is one underlying feeling the author is trying to fill the atmosphere with so that the reader feels it. In most cases the author uses vivid words that invoke a certain feeling, and through these words the reader is suppose to feel the same as the poem. My friend and I read good poetry that does this but eventually get tired and bored of it. It becomes monotonous to us.

To capture the essence of a society or influence, a poem needs more than just emotion. One emotion or two emotions do not capture anything but people to feel those emotions. However, an idea can capture an emotion, a society, a person, an image, and influence. Both my friend and I believe there is nothing wrong with writing strictly for emotion (we know some poets who do exactly that), but we think it is better to write emphasizing an idea. That idea has the abilty to influence and take a freezeframe at the same time while bringing emotion into a poem. I think the ability to infuse writing with an idea is a higher standard than just infusing it with an emotion.

But focusing on an idea or emotion does not truly connect to my last thread about writing from the heart. I do believe that when trying to imply an idea, one must use emotions to help the reader connect to the piece, but that should not be the central focus.

I believe that conveying an idea is a very worthy objective when writing poetry
By the way I enjoy a stimulating discussion and do not wish to invoke any negative emotions in you by straying from the topic. However I have seemed to witness a great deal of emotion from you about the subject of the heart. We seem to share a passion for poetry but we may have a different perception what poetry should be

you didn't invoke a negative emotion. I started this thread only because I believed by discussing this aspect of poetry in the other thread may have confused others who were following.

As for emotion about the heart thing, i guess if you could say that me being sick of people saying that is an emotion, then yes, much emotion came from me. I enjoy this very much too. I don't think that there are nearly enough discussions like this on P and Q

Cory it probably won’t come as a surprise to you that poetry and ideology, or poetic influence on ideology is as old as poets using the heart as a symbol of love and romance

not at all, but using the heart as a symbol isn't the saem as straight up emotional writing.

I am not sure that emotions do not play a vital role in persuading ideologies
It seems throughout history that most changes in ideologies were nearly always followed by, tears, fears, and blood. Perhaps you can help me clearly define the fine line between the passions of the heart soul and mind.

emotions do not exist on their own. They exist because people have attachments to certain things, things they think very highly of, things they wish to protect. Love does not exist on its own. Their has to be something to love, a recipient of the love. If their were no recipient there would be no love. You believe in Jesus right Mike (If I remember correctly from previous postings). In the Bible it says we love because Jesus first loved us. See. Love does not exist on its own and we just come to find it. There is a physical thing or ideology we become attached to, then comes the love, or the hatred, or whatever. My point is that, these emotions are tied to things, beliefs, and ideas on a one way path. Emotions exude because of the agreement or attachment (belief many would call it) to such things. It is not the other way around. Emotions does not come fisrt and out of them comes all the wonderful ideas. People hate and love because they are protecting people or or ideologies. They do not hate and love then come up with people or ideologies to protect from their emotion. Do you understand what I am saying. I feel as though I have been rambling.

“Do you understand what I am saying. I feel as though I have been rambling”
I have had the opportunity of participating in discussions with people who had masters in psychology who have told me you can never argue the truthfulness of how someone feels. I was in a discussion with someone who seemed to challenge my ability to convey an idea or opinion. When I ask him to site anything that I had written to support the information that he was posting about me he stated that he had not read anything I had written. My point is that one can ramble and make sense, and focus and not make sense. I have written a book on the way I feel about things. I believe from what I understand you are talking about cause and effect

You are correct that I accept Jesus as a member of the mysterious Holy Trinity that always was and always will be. The only member of Trinity that became man has been symbolized by the Sacred Heart.

Sorrow is a pain associated sometimes with emotion. Christians are not the only ideologist that use this pain as a spiritual remedy

EDIT I do believe that many of my writings invoke emotion
I write to a lot of people who are incarcerated due to ideologies such as substance abuse. Many of them write back and inform me that they were allowed to read a poem I had sent them in group therapies. An ideal society to me would be one where there is no need of prisons. Emotions to me are inescapable.

I agree that emotions cannot exist without a host
Can ideas exist without a host?

I can't answer your last question. I blankly don't know. People have debated it for ever. I point back to the Bible for you though. When God saw man making the tower of Babel I believe he said if they can do this they do anything, or something like that (if I am wrong tell me). He then destroyed it and scattered humans and tongue.

Ok the break down is like this. God didn't care about the physical tower. He probably thought that look what my creation is building. It was what the tower represented, the reason behind it, which was an ideology that directly tried to show man's power over God, that God didn't like. If I am correct, then the statement if they can do this then anything is possible is not only referring to physical feats, but mental too. If it was just the physical feat then He wouldn't have had to scatter people and not allow them to understand each other.

Assuming everything I have said is correct, God's word anything (everything, whichever the Bible says) refers to an infinite amount of mental abilities--beliefs, ideaologies, theories in science math and physics, etc.-- that had not happened yet. Man may not even have known about these things yet, but God refers to them in this statement. Therefore, one can lean toward saying certain ideologies exist in an abstract without man, and man only comes to find them, or should i say define them, but one can also say God was only breaking the unity man showed at the Tower. I don't know. You probably know more about the Bible than I so you pick.

I believe that most people today know that no group can reach spiritual altitude with a physical structure. The inconvenient truth is that many people put their faith in science and politics. The critics are saying 'Inconvenient Truth': Scariest Film Ever? If man has the power to upset the chemical balance of this planet collectively I believe the truth could save this planet. If fear causes our hearts to beat faster maybe it will pump more blood to our brains that God created, possibly with some purpose in mind.

my gosh, i just have to comment on the lengths of everyones repsonses!! =P

^^ and i agree with the post above mine =P

Bump