But I feel like I need to be specific about which poem I prefer in jubilat 16. There's two. One of them wants to talk about what the speaker thinks of mysteries, and the other one indolence. I really like the indolence one. The mysteries one, not so much.
I've been trying to figure out why that is. They both use a very similar argumentative style. They claim an incomplete knowledge of their respective abstract concept, but quickly qualify this incomplete knowledge by explaining that there is some vaguely concrete situation that may help to shed some light on that abstract concept. With the poem that starts by talking about indolence ("Team of Fake Deities Arranged on an Orange Plate"), the fact is one could look inward and contrast what one see there to the things in the room around him, and that could make it possible to find peace. It's a refined and complex argument, and, like the poem here states, "I like it."
What's not to like about a frank bias for introspection over indolence. And what's not to like about a speaker telling you all these delightful things he likes, and give him peace. Absolutely nothing! In fact, what's not to love about it!
Well, when it turns out the idea is mysteries, like it is in "The Malady That Took the Place of Thinking." I guess the concept of mysteries is too wide open, and too presumptive mysteriousness. Or maybe it's just too explicitly vague.
Related Links:
jubilat
Twenty-Seven Props for a Production of Eine Lebenszeit
