Humberto Maturana, a biologist and a philosopher, whose views I got introduced with by Gokul jee, has this to say- "When one puts objectivity in parenthesis, all views, all verses in the multiverse are equally valid". This is what came to my mind when I read Oys' verses along with mG's. And then I thought what if one removes the parentheses ? I don't mean to offend Oys, but his response of Regimen II, III to mG's Regimen is innocent at best and lacks respect to mG's peerless creation at worst. (I know, I know, Oys is a big admirer of mG's works. That's why I said it innocent.) I don't mean Oys' pieces are not good. They are good. They are as good as mG's. Nor do I mean they have no right to sit next to mG's. They can make a valid claim for that. But all this only in the condition Maturana described. My experiment was to test that with his condition removed. I want to be clear on this before anyone thinks I might be interfering with other's creative sovereignty or as they call, poetic license. As far as I can see, Oys' regimens symbolize a petty, mundane, stale, de-inspiring, limited and unreasoned routine. mG's is the opposite. Petty yet transcendal and inspiring, unexplained yet reasonable, preachy yet not assertive and so on. If Oys meant to contrast, fine. Otherwise they are good poems at a wrong place. ************ 'Answers' and 'Questions' by mG- stunning ! ***********