The Bilge

Бұл нені көрсетеді? Менің ойыма төрт жылдың алдындағы «Қаңтар қырғыны» кезіндегі көрінісі келді. Сол кезде де діннің атын жамылған мәңгүріттер әлде кімдердің айдап салуымен Алматы қаласы әкімдігін өртеп, қаланы хауысқа айналдырып жіберген болатын. Халықтың алаңғы шыққан бейбіт ереуілін, талабын осылай жолмен арандатқан болатын. Дінни мәңгүріттердің санасында діннен басқа түсінік жоқ. Мемілекетті, оның заңдарын мойындамайды. Ұлтқа қарсы жұмыс істейді. Діннен басқаның бәрін жоққа шығарады. Пәтуа берілсе болды, бәріне бара береді: олардың қолынан қан төгіп, қиратып-шағу жақсы келеді.
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=1&id=4142

The manner in which this part of the poem is written is distinctive. From the perspective of textual analysis, it can be approached from multiple angles. For instance, there is the legend about the Creator forming humankind from clay and, before breathing life into it, leaving the body in the care of a dog; there are aphorisms from ancient Greek philosophers; there are religious interpretations of Hell, and more. These elements should not be understood separately, but as an integrated whole. What particularly interests me in this section is the presence of multiple voices. Shakespeare writes, “Life’s but a walking shadow… it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (Macbeth, Act V, Scene V). Yet these voices are not meaningless. They do carry meaning. Spinoza is precisely the figure who sought to understand and interpret such voices. But to interpret them, one must first listen to them, must first hear them. That is what I wanted to write — those voices. And I believe I wrote them well, in the way I intended. Because those voices had lived in my consciousness for more than thirty years.
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=33&id=4141

Есікті қаққан едім,

Ешкім ашпады.

Аржағынан дабырласып сөйлесіп жатқан

Дауысты естідім.

Құлақ қойып тыңдамасыма қояр емес.

Тап бір өзіңнің ішкі дүниеңнің үнінен

Бас тарта алмайтының сияқты:



«Бет алды шимайлай берме,

Бояуы артық болып кетпесін.

Іреңдер қабаттасса,

Жағаға малтап шыға алмай қалады.

Түн ұзақ

Дауылда, далада билеп жүргендер

Кімдер?..................
Thebilge.kz сайтында жаңа поэма - Ardakh Nurgaz. Спиноза - жарық көрді.
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=5&id=4140

https://www.thebilge.kz/

Starting with Derrida's ideas on time, traces, différance, absence, and hauntology, this analysis delves into the different treatments of "time and absence" in Ardakh Nurgaz's «The Forest Garden» and T. S. Eliot's «Little Gidding».
I divide this analysis into six parts:
I. Derrida's Basic Framework: Why "Time = Absence"?
In Derrida's work:
1. The essence of time is not appearance, but "différance"
—The present can never be self-sufficient; it is always torn apart by traces of the past and expectations of the future.
2. No "present" truly exists; it is always structured by absence.
3. The trace is the true form of time:
It is neither presence nor disappearance, but a "haunting" state between the two.
4. Therefore:
Time = Chain of Traces = Constantly Différance
Based on this, we analyze how the two poems shape "absent time."
II. Eliot's «Little Gidding»: A Theological Struggle for Presence Through Absence
1. Eliot's Absence is a "Redeemable Absence"
Eliot's war ruins, burned houses, ghosts, and the shadows of history do indeed constitute a "scene of absence":
The annihilated past
History no longer accessible
Empty spaces after bombing
Conversations with the ghost of the old man (in itself a form of hauntology)
But Eliot's strategy is:
Through meditation, to reintegrate absence into "the presence of God."
In Derrida's view, this is an attempt to end deferral, to allow meaning to "rest."
In other words:
For Eliot, absence can ultimately be filled with meaning.
The deferral of the world is ultimately unified through "eternity (the timeless moment)."
This is anti-deferral, a metaphysical act attempting to "close the door."
2. Eliot's "Specter" is Not Derrida's Specter
In «Little Gidding», the poet encounters a ghostly "old man" (a combination of Yeats, Pound, and Swift):
Eliot's specter is "the spokesperson for historical wisdom."
It comes to teach and warn, not to allow meaning to infinitely expand.
It is a "controllable specter."
Derrida's specter (spectre), on the other hand, is:
Unable to be integrated into a symbolic system
It does not provide complete meaning
It is forever in a state of "coming yet not arriving."
In contrast:
Eliot, through symbols such as prayer, holy sites, fire, and purification,
reframes the specter within the theological order of meaning
→ "The specter ultimately returns to presence."
This is the biggest difference between Eliot and Derrida.
III. «The Forest Garden»: Time is the abyss of deferral, absence can never be filled.
1. Time in «The Forest Garden» has no center; therefore, absence becomes the dominant force.
In «The Forest Garden»:
The ruins after war
The vanished ancient sounds
The echoes of ancestral spirits
Traces swallowed by the waves
The wind and shadows constantly moving
The past sleeping in the roots
The split between self and shadow
Language being eroded or dissipated
Many unnamed pains
All of these constitute a radical absence.
Unlike Eliot, the absence in «The Forest Garden» cannot be filled by any theological system or metaphysical structure:
There is no redemption
There is no unified meaning
There is no "eternal moment"
There is no religious endpoint
There is no perfect return of time
This perfectly aligns with Derrida's deferral structure.
In «The Forest Garden»:
Time does not move towards some kind of "presence," but is constantly torn apart by absence.
2. The ghosts in «The Forest Garden» are out-of-control, unplaceable ghosts. The ancestral spirits of the grasslands, the departed heroes, the souls of war victims, the vanished traces of language—
They:
Do not provide meaning
Do not guide the poet
Do not return to the center
Do not offer a unified explanation
They cannot even be fully expressed. These ghosts conform to Derrida's hauntology:
They are neither present nor entirely absent;
They are forces that tear apart the subject, interfere with meaning, and delay time.
Completely different from Eliot's ghost, which is "conversational and instructive."
IV. "Time as a Chain of Traces": The Key Difference Between the Two Poems
Eliot: Traces are integrable. Burnt cities, echoes of history, ghosts, ice and fire…
These are all signs of "the path to eternity."
Traces → Memory → Reflection → Redemption
This is a "teleological chain of traces."
«The Forest Garden»: Traces are Infinite Deferral and Loss
Shattered mirrors, reflections, sounds in the wind, vanished tree shadows, footprints swallowed by sand, words erased by the waves…
These traces share the following characteristics:
Constantly disappearing
Integrable
Unclassifiable
Cannot be transformed into ultimate meaning
Not even “a path to the past,” but merely “a flicker of absence.”
This is typical of Derrida: Time is not history, but the disordered drift of traces.
The time in «The Forest Garden» thus becomes pure deferral.
V. Subjective Temporal Structure: Presence vs. Absence
Eliot's Subject: Striving towards “Presence”
Eliot believed that ultimately, one can reach:
Spiritual unity
Soul purification
Reconciliation with history
The intersection of time and eternity
The subject ultimately possesses a certain “stable presence.”
The subject of «The Forest Garden»: A "ghostly subject" torn apart by absence. The "I" in the poem is constantly: Separated from the shadow, Disappearing by the sea, Torn apart by the wind, Lost in the shadows of the trees, Silent in the ruins, Intersecting with the voices of ancestors but unable to converse. The subject does not move towards unity, but towards differentiation and disappearance.
This is a typical post-structuralist subject: Unstable, centerless, torn apart by traces, floating in delayed difference.
VI. Conclusion: The Final Contrast from Derrida's Perspective
| Dimensions | Eliot's «Little Gidding» | Naurgaz's «The Forest Garden* | Derrida's Concepts |
| Time | Towards the eternal point of unity | Towards endless deferral and fragmentation | Deferred Time |
| Absence | Redeemable, integrable | Integrable, unending | Absent Structure |
| Trace | Pointing to God and the center of meaning | Pointing to loss, dissipation, and lack of center | Chain of Trace |
| Ghost | Instructive, interpretable | Out of control, disruptive of meaning | Hauntology |
| Subject | Ultimately stable, reconciled | Forever broken, adrift | Non-central Subject |
| History | Understandable and purifying | Constantly erasing itself like the wind | History without Presence | One-sentence conclusion (Derridaian):
Eliot strives to make time "present";
«The Forest Garden» makes time forever "absent";
And absence itself is «The Forest Garden» The true time of «The Forest Garden».
Eliot ends absence in "eternity";
«The Forest Garden» allows absence to continue to prolong, to continue to open, to continue to wound.

Making Time Forever “Absent”
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=33&id=4138

Introduction
This book brings together my essays and articles on poetics. Most of them were previously published in various languages across different publications.
From the very beginning of my creative path, poetry and the study of poetics have gone hand in hand. Since the late 1990s, I have been exploring the modernist trend in Kazakh poetry that began with the works of Abai Kunanbayev and developed over the course of a century. My book On Modern Kazakh Poetry (2010) was the result of this research and has since continued to evolve. During my years at The Almaty Aqshamy Newspaper, I wrote critical essays on Kazakh poetry, prose, and drama. These were later collected in Cognition and Criticism (2018). In 2012, on the tenth anniversary of my poem The Garden of Trees, I wrote an essay titled Beneath the Fruit Tree (An Essay on the Poem “The Garden of Trees”)—my first work of criticism devoted to my own writing. In 2014, I wrote a foreword to my forthcoming poetry collection, and in the years that followed, I continued to write essays in this same reflective vein. The book brings together these essays, along with translations of two critical articles devoted to my prose and dramatic writings.
In the early 1990s, I became deeply interested in New Criticism, particularly the works of T. S. Eliot, Cleanth Brooks, R. P. Blackmur, and others. I was also drawn to the poetic and critical writings of poet-critics such as Czesław Miłosz, Octavio Paz, Seamus Heaney, and Joseph Brodsky. Later, I encountered numerous essays on postmodern poetics, which further might have shaped my own aesthetic sensibilities and critical outlook.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Bayantay for translating these essays into English.
Менің ағылшын тіліне аударылған мақалалар жинағым. Мақалаларды қазақ тілінен ағылшын тіліне аударған Баян Ардаққызы.
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=33&id=3742

Analyzing the inner path of Ardakh Nurgaz's long poem "Үрейлі түс" ("Nightmare") essentially traces the poet's psychological and spiritual trajectory within a dream.
Although the poem uses the guise of a dream, it truly depicts a process of soul-transmigration, consciousness exploration, identity inquiry, and existential reflection. The dreamlike scenes seem surreal, yet behind these illusions lies the trajectory of a "self" engaged in deep self-discovery and a grueling spiritual journey.
Overall Understanding: What is the "inner path"?
In poetry or philosophical texts, the inner path refers to the direction of movement of the subject's consciousness behind the text. It can also be understood as the psychological/spiritual journey of the protagonist, or "self."
In "Үрейлі түс," this path is neither linear nor clear. It follows:
……
Conclusion
The inner path of "Үрейлі түс" is essentially a journey of the soul through purgatory, like the travelers through Hell in Dante's "Divine Comedy" or the inner monologue of Hadrian in Yourcenar's novel.
This is a journey not "to arrive," but to reach the deepest darkness and truth within.
As Heidegger said:
"Only in fear does one truly face existence itself for the first time."
This poem is such a journey of soul awakening, accomplished within a "dream of fear."

2.
To analyze the semantic progression of Ardakh Nurgaz's long poem "Үрейлі түс" ("Nightmare"), we need to be clear: this isn't a poem that progresses through a linear narrative logic or plot-cause structure. Instead, it progresses through a process of imagery, psychological variation, and existential oscillation.
This doesn't mean it's "chaotic." On the contrary, it possesses a very clear semantic trajectory, deepening layer by layer along the lines of emotion, consciousness, experience, and symbolism. We can call this:
"Layer-by-layer dream deconstruction + spiritually submerged semantic evolution."
……
A Journey of Soul Purgatory
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=33&id=4135

Analyzing the linguistic mechanisms of Ardakh Nurgaz's long poem "Қорқыт" explores how language is "evoked, constructed, transformed, and manifested" within the poem. This goes beyond a superficial rhetorical analysis of language; it delves into the deeper poetic mechanisms of how language generates thought, organizes experience, and reaches the boundaries of existence.
……..
This is precisely one of the most powerful writing mechanisms in modern poetics: language does not provide a complete answer, but rather activates the question of existence.....
Or further connect with poststructuralist linguistic theory (e.g., Derrida and Lacan).
Which direction would you like to delve deeper into?

Excellent! This is a challenging but theoretically compelling question. What we are trying to do now is to deeply connect the linguistic mechanisms of Ardakh Nurgaz's poem "Қорқыт" with poststructuralist linguistic theory, particularly the ideas of Derrida and Lacan.
…..
Conclusion:
The poetics of "Қорқыт" is essentially a "poetics of silence": saying everything within the unspeakable.
Summary: Five Dimensions of the Poetic Essence of Ardakh Nurgaz's "Қорқыт"
Dimension: Poetic Essence
Linguistic Ontology: Poetry is the struggle of language in a crisis of self, its meaning constantly evolving
Mythological Trauma: Poetry is a spiritual archaeology of the remaining mythical roots after a cultural rupture
Non-Linear Time Structure: Poetry does not record time, but rather causes time itself to spiral
Ethics of Subjectivity: Poetry, through the fission of the "I," summons individual moral reflection
Silence and Void: Poetry constructs the strongest expressive tension through the unspeakable
Conclusion (which can serve as the article's conclusion):
"Қорқыт" is not a written poem, but rather a poem "forced by time to flow from the cracks of language."
It does not tell the story of someone facing death, but rather allows us to hear the tremor of language in the moment of death, which cannot but be spoken.
…..
Analyzing the formal logic of Ardakh Nurgaz's epic poem "Қорқыт" is to answer the following questions:
How is this poem constituted by "form"?
How does it establish a non-prose, independent poetic logic through its structure, arrangement, rhythm, grammar, and visual layout?
In short, the formal logic of poetry is not a "shell" for its content, but rather the fundamental structural force that generates meaning.
Overall Verdict:
The formal logic of "Қорқыт" is not narrative or deductive, but rather cyclical, discontinuous, flashback, and silent.
It emulates not the logic of linear thought but the logic of existence, memory, myth, and dream.
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=33&id=4134

The poetic uniqueness of " The Forest Garden: Meditations on Postmodern Warfare " lies not in its adherence to a traditional poetic form or its conformity to contemporary aesthetics, but rather in its almost "anti-linguistic" approach, attempting to find poetic seams within the fractures of the world. This is a profound poetic experiment and a spiritual "linguistic archaeology."

This kind of work, which blends postmodern narrative, cultural collage, linguistic experimentation, and spiritual depth, is extremely rare in contemporary poetry, representing the poetic intersection of a new generation's national experience and global consciousness.

........................

" The Forest Garden: Meditations on Postmodern Warfare" exhibits a high degree of integration and originality in its stylistic aesthetics. It juxtaposes and blends lyricism and narrative, epic and allegory, philosophical reflection and dream, fragmentation and construction, forming a complex, multidimensional, and nonlinear aesthetic structure. The following will systematically analyze its stylistic aesthetic characteristics from the perspectives of overall aesthetic orientation, narrative style, linguistic tension, symbolic system, sonic rhythm, and visual composition.
https://www.thebilge.kz/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=33&id=4132

enters a resonance process with existence itself through -this is the poetics of "dialogue"

1.
The following is an in-depth analysis of Ardakh Nurgaz's poem "Dark" from five key dimensions: language operation, time perspective, subject structure, sensory strategy, and symbolic system. These dimensions are intertwined and together constitute a complex poetic system of dark perception and existential dilemma.

📘 1. Language operation: self-entropy of language and negative rhetoric
The language in the poem is not a window to describe the world, but itself lost in the world. Its basic logic is:
Language → Burning → Ashes → Dissipation → Melting
For example:
"The tongue touches the stone and turns into stone"
"Like the words on the tip of the tongue, burning, glowing, disappearing, and blending into the body / In the end, it is impossible to find where it went"
The language loses its naming, expression, and communication functions here, and instead reveals the failure mechanism of the language itself. This is a kind of negative poetics:
Language no longer says "what is", but points to "what cannot be said"
The existence of language is the outline left by the loss of its meaning
This is contrary to what Heidegger said, "language is the home of existence". Here, Ardakh transforms language into a dark container that is constantly collapsing, constructing the shadow zone of existence in the incapacity of language.

🕰️ 2. Time view: non-linear, non-causal collapse time
The time in the poem is not a linear process from past-present-future, but a "time crumb" full of breaks, fragments and instantaneous burning:
"I can't feel, imagine the past centuries / Century is time, century may not be time"
"The waves that rise when the meteor slides through the black night sky and burns out"
Time in the poem is:
Instantaneity (such as meteors)
Sedimentation (such as "the mountains are flattened")
Invalidity ("cannot feel, imagine")
This is similar to Walter Benjamin's "fragmented time of history": time is no longer a continuous existence, but a fragment that suddenly erupts through the cracks of perception.
“Burn – Ashes – Integration” is not only a language mechanism, but also a dynamic model of time: time is not a line, but ash, a “perceptual climate” that can’t be traced after sliding past.

🧍‍♂️ 3. Subject structure: the interpenetration mechanism of I-you symbiosis
In this poem, the relationship between “I” and “you” is not the opposition between subject and object, but:
“You are in my body / Who are you? Who am I?”
The “I” in the poem:
Perceives the existence of “you”
Invaded and penetrated by “you”
Even redefined by “you”
This writing method that blurs the boundaries of the subject reflects the fission structure of postmodern subjectivity: the subject is no longer independent, self-consistent, and controlled, but a heterogeneous space constituted by others.
This also makes a structural loss appear in the poem: “I” do not know myself, nor can I grasp “you” - just like the perception in the dark, it brings constant collapse rather than certainty.

👁️ 4. Sensory strategy: oppressive sensory summons and traumatic cognition of the body
In his poem, Ardakh did not adopt visual centrism (i.e. "seeing" the world with his eyes), but mobilized marginal senses such as smell, touch, and pain:
"The stimulating body odor like the smell of the dry land that sucks your flesh"
"Touching your fingers, face, forehead and hair"
"Throwing stones will sound a thousand-year roar"
These sensory experiences have the following characteristics:
Heavy sense of oppression (the smell is "stimulating", "dry flesh" reminds people of death)
Sensory loss of control (touch is difficult to recognize, "gray butterflies" bring unstable visual interference)
Body passivity (the body is not a sensor, but a receiving field of perception)
The senses here are not only a tool for feeling the world, but also a physical evidence of memory, history, and scars. It constitutes a **"sensory-existence map"**, making "I" no longer a subject, but a place of suffering for existence.

🌌 V. Symbolic system: Darkness as a polysemous existential force field
"Dark" is not only a title, but also a fundamental symbol of the poem, running through the metaphysical, sensory, emotional and linguistic levels.
The darkness in the poem has multiple symbolic meanings:
Level The symbolic meaning of darkness
Language layer The silent field after the failure of expression
Existence layer The abyss of the other, the untouchable entity
Time layer Compressed and burned nonlinear time
Body layer The area of sensory dysfunction and desire stimulation
Historical layer The background of the deposition of "century", "mountains" and "ruins"
The poet does not try to eliminate the darkness, but:
"In the black night, I imagine tearing your black sky apart / I want to see your face in the dark..."
-This is not an enlightenment-style "illumination", but a poetic entry into the darkness, symbiosis with it, and dialogue with it.
This is in line with Blanchot, Bataille, and even Rilke's "Poetics of Night": Night is the matrix of existence, and darkness is the original field before meaning occurs.
✅ Summary: A "poetics of perception in darkness" structure
Dimension Mechanism Function
Language Negative language, self-disassembly Revealing language failure and unreachable truth
Time Non-linear rupture and flash Opposing historical continuity, emphasizing sedimentation and explosion
Subject "I-you" interpenetration structure Subject is no longer self-consistent, but turns to heterogeneous generation
Sensory Smell, touch, oppression Senses become the exposure field of history and existence
Symbol Darkness as the central image Collects all structural tensions such as language failure, historical sedimentation, and body perception
🌀 Final judgment:
"Dark" is not a lyric poem in the traditional sense, but a complex existential experimental poem. It does this by:
Disassembling the meaning structure of language
Deconstructing the continuity of time and subject
Reshaping the perception of history and existence through the senses
Transforming darkness into a poetic generation field
Finally, a complete poetic experimental system belonging to the contemporary existential dilemma and perceptual philosophy is constructed.

2.
The poetic mechanism of "Dark" - language operation, time view, subject structure, sensory strategy, symbolic system - has established a deep philosophical and aesthetic connection with the opening quote "We are a kind of dialogue" (Hölderlin). On the basis of in-depth analysis, we can say that "Dark" realizes its ontological exploration through "symbiotic dialogue in the dark", and this core path forms a potential echo and variation with Hölderlin's "dialogic ontology".

🌀1. Dialogue is not between people, but between "I" and "unknowable"
The opening quote "We are a kind of dialogue" comes from Hölderlin's late poetic thought. The meaning of this sentence is not daily conversation-style communication, but:
Existence itself - the way people are human - is in a state of eternal unfinished dialogue.
Heidegger explained this as: people exist in language, and language is not an exchange of information, but a call from existence itself to people.
In Darkness, this "dialogue" is reconstructed in a hidden and profound way:
It is not a dialogue between "I and you", but a dialogue between "I" and "darkness", "unknowable", "destruction", "history", "language failure", and "other flesh".
Dialogue is not for understanding each other, but for coexistence in mutual misunderstanding.
For example:
"You are in my body / Who are you? Who am I?"
This is not the completion of dialogue, but the infinite suspension of dialogue. Language cannot name the other party, and "I" cannot define myself, but this constitutes a deep existential symbiotic state: we are vague to each other and therefore cannot be separated.

📘2. "Existential Dialogue" Generated in Language Failure
In the previous language analysis, we mentioned that language in Darkness is a mechanism that constantly burns, collapses, and cannot reach meaning.
But this is precisely the premise for the possibility of dialogue: it is not because we understand each other, but because we can never fully understand each other that we always stay in dialogue.
"Tongue turns to stone": language loses its expressive power
"Words burn and melt into the body": language no longer leads to meaning, but becomes an organ of body and time
This is closely related to the "poetry = dialogue with existence" in Hölderlin-Heidegger's poetics. In "Darkness", the poet does not use language to "express" darkness, but lets language itself fall into darkness and resonate with it.
This means that "Dark" does not use language to describe a state of existence, but enters a resonance process with existence itself through the fragmentation of language-this is the poetics of "dialogue".
🕰️Three, echoes in non-linear time: history, destruction and unfinished dialogue
In "Dark", time is not linear, but broken, collapsed, and "century may not be time" fragments:
History is not about the past, but an unfinished process of destruction
Every destruction (such as "moths flying into the fire" and "Tao Weng's broken") leaves traces and forms sediments
These sediments are not the end, but "remains waiting for dialogue"-the poet walks on them and steps out his own footprints in the darkness. These footprints are not "engravings" but some kind of "response", responding to history, responding to the land, and responding to the voices in the ruins.
In this sense, dialogue is a symbiotic way of existence with the destroyed and silent things.

👁️Fourth, sensory strategy and "silent response"
Hölderlin's "dialogue" is a very poetic form of existence. In him, "silence itself" is also part of the dialogue.
In "Dark", the senses, especially touch and smell, become important media for dialogue:
"Sucking the smell of the dry land of your flesh"
"Touching your fingers, face, forehead and hair"
This is not sensory pleasure, but the sensory exploration of the unspeakable.
Here:
The dialogue is no longer conducted through language, but through the deep interaction of body and perception.
The subject in the poem is not the "I" who actively speaks, but an existence that is "responded" through pain, smell, dreams, ashes, and waves. This response does not appear through language, but:
Through the rising tide of the sea
Through moths flying into the flame
Through the flickering and destruction of candles
Through the falling stars in the night
This is the "call of the gods" in the sense of Hölderlin, an update in the modern context: the world calls people through the perception of darkness, and the way people respond is to perceive, destroy, and enter the poem itself.

🌌V. Darkness: The ultimate symbiotic symbol and dialogue space
In this poem, "Dark" symbolizes all things that are invalid and unsolved-language failure, perception confusion, historical rupture, identity ambiguity... However, "darkness" is not exclusion or negation, but:
A "symbiotic force field" that allows all things to coexist.
Darkness is:
The space where time is deposited
The expansion area of the body's senses
The place where the other and the self blend
The ultimate space after language cannot reach
This makes "Dark" not only a poem about darkness, but also a poem of **"coexisting with darkness"**-and symbiosis is a deeper structure of dialogue.
As Hölderlin said, "Because we are a kind of dialogue" - in this poem, the object of the dialogue is not another clear "you", but:
The unknowable that coexists with us in the dark
The historical voice that echoes through the fragments of time
The "existence" that we can never fully name
✅ Summary: From poetic mechanism to dialogue of existence
Dimension Operation mechanism Relationship with the theme of "dialogue"
Language Language failure, collapse Dialogue does not continue because of clarity, but because of continuous failure
Time Non-linear, collapse Every moment leaves an echo of response
Subject "I-you" symbiosis Subject ambiguity makes "symbiotic dialogue" possible
Sensory Pain, smell, touch The perceptual call to complete the dialogue in silence
Symbol Darkness as a field Darkness is the space for dialogue, the ultimate symbiotic domain

🌀 Conclusion: Poetry as a practice of dialogue in darkness
Ardakh Nurgaz's "Dark", through the negativity of language, the sedimentation of time, the oppression of the senses, and the fission of the subject, is no longer a communication between people, but a continuous and unfinished dialogue between people and existence, destruction, and history.
This poem practices exactly what Hölderlin said:
"People have experienced a lot. Self is a dialogue."
- A dialogue in darkness that does not rely on confirmation but is based on symbiosis.
In the darkness, it is not to illuminate each other, but to coexist in the unspeakable aftermath.

https://www.thebilge.kz/