it's to one side

I have heard a little of these fallacies and disregard them as best I can when concerning any expression of the human mind or soul. I do not discredit or attempt to disprove them, but I believe poetry to be a conduit for our feelings and, as such, should reflect our inner turmoils. I speak to myself in my mind and often feel there is something within that simply cannot find the means with which to interact with the world. I do not know if others feel the same, but for this reason I see no error in expressing it.

What an extraordinarily gay comment. And wrong. And you also fall prey to saying someone's logic falls prey to something, which makes you a first-rate practitioner of Parmesean Bummingtonism in my book. Conclusions: There is no "you", just a funny-shaped knee-hat in Harris tweed.

All I meant to say is that "you" can't be stuck within "yourself" because "yourself" and "you" are the same thing. You can't ever say that a Set A is within Set A because it doesn't make any sense; The boundaries of "you" and "yourself" are always identical and so there can be no way for one to be within the other. When you say that there is an "I" that is different than and within "myself," they are claiming that the mind is something different or beyond the physical brain. However, if you meant to say that your brain is stuck within your body, then that is reasonable, since Set A (your brain) is different than Set B (your body). Anyway, I apologize for the confusion. I just meant to say that the last line seemed specious to me at the time.