[Robert Pecotte]

Well...spirit and emotion are not the same thing and intellect and knowledge are not the same thing. The 'soul' or 'spirit' contains the Intellect, Memory and the Will. The passions (emotions) are part of the sensitive appetite which functions through the body and influences the Will. Thus, they are also called feelings. The Intellect is supposed to inform the Will of either the 'good' or the 'evil' (or greater or lesser good) of a desired act or object that the Emotions are moving the Will toward. Example: I experience the emotion of anger based in an injury caused by another: do I harm that person back or not? Is harming the person back always the proper choice? My intellect needs to inform my will whether or not the emotion of anger ought to be acted on or released.

I have no problem with poetry that expresses emotions (my poems always do,) but this one certainly did not do that for me. In point of fact, I thought that this poem required too much of the intellect to be understood beyond some vague idea of what it might mean. The first couple of lines made me think of 'homeless people' but after that...not at all. For a poem to produce the desired emotional response, it needs to be understood. Otherwise, the emotional content is missed or replaced with confusion.

I have no problem with people liking this poem, but to say that the ‘intellect’ takes a secondary place in poetry is a ridiculous statement. And remember, I do not equate the Intellect with ‘fact” (or knowledge with mere fact.) I’m not endorsing Spockean poetry (or Leonard Nimoy’s.)

Fr. RP

PS: I replied to the question of emotion over intellect: Wendy raised it.