We.

[tectak]

Edit 1

The line between the legs which yearns, burns, and begs,
searches for a soul to devour with unshakeable power.

The want beyond one wife yields pain, strain, and strife,
twists my thoughts; shivering, hurried, and hot.

The shallow within ourselves which extolls, cajoles, and contains,
Ignores empathy; trading faith for apathy resigned.


An alternate last line:

Ignores empathy; replaces faith with apathy resigned.

Yes. I agree that this is progress. There is still one glaring nit. You use the definitive "the" throughout this piece but then switch to no good purpose to "my" in S2; then again in S3 when you go all global with "ourselves". This is an inconsistency which is exacerbated by the strangely perverse capitalisation of the last line. It is as though the thought caught you unawares and you just cashed in on the immediacy of it all. That closing phrase is still only superficially translatable and on consideration I still have as much idea what it means as I have appreciation for the King's new clothes.
Best,
tectak

---

I would suggest that you first of all make up your mind, as to whether your aim is either 1) to communicate lucidly what is in your mind, to the reader, so that s/he understands as nearly as it is ever possible, the 'meaning'; or 2) to put out something, with a few pointers, from which the reader will take away what s/he will, with little reference to whatever your point was.

I do not agree with tectak about 'the shallow' , 'cajoling' 'extolling' etc. It is quite common to convert adjectives into nouns, e.g.-'the good, the bad and the indifferent'. It is precisely the shallow part of me, at any rate, which does a lot of cajoling: it used to cajole me into having just one cigarette; another beer on the way home, and much else. It likes extolling, too: it tells me that this or that is brilliant, the very thing -- and requires some other bit of brain to pour cold water over it.

Welcome, and everything-- but your piece doers need a revamp.

Hi abu,
I don't agree with me either but it was the definitive that rankled. The good, the bad and the indifferent is categorisation...groups if you like. In this piece "the shallow" is self-referencing and as such it is implicitly a singularity...so I question its use as a noun. That is to say, you can no more ask what is a shallow than you can ask what is a good or a bad or an indifferent. Clarity before confusion everytime for me else we all translate ourselves in to the mad....see what I mean?
Best,
tectak

Why can't the shadow be a group of debase self serving thoughts?

What shadow? You simply cannot have a "group of debase" anythings. You must say a group of DEBASED anythings. Can you see the error in your word use?
Best,
tectak