Hi Sue,
       Thanks for your comments on this piece. You are absolutely right about the phrase `frozen stasis´ and I think the whole of it can go. Both words are quite unnecessary. I don´t understand how I can have been so blind, using `frozen´ (twice) in a poem that is already so full of snow and ice. This, of course, is the value of this kind of list where readers look with fresh eyes.
I cannot resist also picking up your reference to my earliest postings. I would never wish to claim authorial control over the interpretation of a poem that I have sent out into the world, and if someone reads one of those as expressing a philosophy of the world, then that is their prerogative. I would like to add though that I do not myself have a philosophy of anything. I am interested in philosophy and occasionally take topics from my reading of philosophy for use in poems, sometimes adopting a persona, sometimes using an authorial voice. In the latter case I think I am either tentative or ambiguous, allowing for different readings. So,if someone says, `Love is the only important thing in life´ that seems to me both didactic and direct. If someone says, `It´s a question of imperfect contact´ that seems to me tentative. A question, after all, is not an assertion. The style I used in that first submission was discursive and I know that not everyone likes discursive poetry, but, there you go. 
Well, the whole subject is a big one and we´ve been over some of the ground already, but I wouldn´t like to think that anyone had the impression that I had a `message´ to give the world.


Best wishes,   Mike



--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
I think this is just excellent, and I am amazed seeing how far you have come
since your first poems here (those where you told your philosophy of the
world).  Finlandia might be a good title for this (might as we know where we
are).  Frozen stasis is a little wordy.  Frozen alone should do it.
Excellent, excellent.
Sue   http://members.aol.com/poetscalf