My process for the object poem was to, either real or imagined, leave my body and focus on my object as it is in its seemingly SEEMless entirety. I attempted to remember to forget, or not place emphasis or conscious effort or attentiveness to the fact that the pretense to my 'doing' of the poem was SEEMingly that of an assignment beyond the realm of "complete freedom writing." I, instead, brain washed myself, washing away afterthoughts and preconceived notions from my brain, and delving into the object FURther and ‘FARther’ (somewhat mistakenly to the point of object subjectivity--- perhaps a misTAKEn identity?). I made lists of the objects qualities, details, features, and what have you. I collaged the chosen pieces of those lists, piecing them together into a completed puzzle, considering word plays, sequential orders, and synonymous ways of putting them. I thought of what the chosen synonyms and other written devises brought fourth that the un-chosen ones did not. Yet, I attempted to not attempt, and/but simply do; to not 'think,' not feel; but something else that is no more/no less than simply what it is (or was). I embraced contradiction, at times reaching peaks in which I did not meta-cognize (thought thinking of itself). I got INTO IT; BEing INTUITive. I was 'be' or 'is' (ism?) as opposed to 'becoming.' However, even those distinction (i.e. be/becoming, not meta-cognizing/meta-cognizing, not attempt/attempt, preconceived notion/afterthoughts/NOWness, etc.) are SEEMingly laced with a dualistic relationship that SEEMS removed to me; removed in ways that I did not wish upon to divide my attention. I wanted to allow the object my undivided attention. And so, I wished/willed (free willed? or mechanistically? probably both?) away these DISTINCTions; detoxing, forgetting to forget, remaining mindful yet out of my mind (in terms of my OBJECTional METAtation). I tried to be straight forward (but open to non-linear forms), concise (but open ended) and true (but with the notion that 'the truth would come back if I let it go' in mind) to the assignment and to the purpose of the poetic style (object poem). I desired to be engaging to the point of pivoting beyond simply telling; instead showing to the point of engaging (except: "showing note telling"). (Note: I was in and out of these extremely intense states of being of which I have spoken of thus far and of that which I will continue to speak of)
Honestly, when it comes down to the point of discussion at which, how "challenging" the production of this poem was for me, I would begin with stating my claim that: I do not necessarily find it necessary to equate learning or poetic process, product, and what more I can say and what have you, with "challenge," "difficulty," “WORK” or "unpleasantness." In fact, I often times find that when thinking of my self and the creative WORK which is being exposed to me or through me as the product, not of what its inner most source is, but instead of any assortment of outer judger or definee, that that creative WORK is stifled. In accordance with this idea, I wanted to engage the poem in such a way that the poem was as easy as it could get/be. I wanted to let loose, let my guard down, be unreserved, unafraid but open to my flaws, and so on and so forth; genuine/authentic/honest; derivative ('of deriving').
It seems as though much of this intentional process of becoming a being that is non-intentional, ended up quite successful, somewhat through the means of mystification (putting the mind in a state of CONfusion, inquiry, wonder, and uncertainty; pushing buttons and comfort zones).
I learned a great deal. I had never approached a poem quite like this before; so focused upon an object to the point of that object and I becoming reflective surfaces of one another, then reflections, then one in the same (either real or imagined).
With the risk of redundancy, and the hopes of further clarification, as a final note it should be noted that, although I was not held back (for the most part, seemingly) by “preconceived notions” and “afterthoughts,” I also embraced them simultaneously as a means of playing off of the truth that is already known/done and twisting that truth a bit. I wrote liberally on the grounds of conservatism. In other words, I experimented, improvised, and riffed off of tradition and form. Perhaps this brought a nice tension to my piece; a tension which sets the occasion for a metaphorical friction between conservatism and liberalism to bring rise to an energy source that is reSOURCEful, energetic, and that is hopefully engaging to the reader in some way.