Stop and listen

[patrickoday]

Ego Me

Crickets crick as frogs call out,
seeking everything about
Were the same, us and them, 
Repeating the same here and then
Don't they know it doesn't matter, 
Crying out such desperate chatter?
Yet still they try, can't seem to win
What is Delusion if not faith,
in that we think that is our fate?
But I'm not dumb, I'm not stupid, 
Then show me that your logics lucid
We talk and fight then turn to violence,
When really we need to sit in silence
Crickets crick and frogs call out
with nothing else to talk about.
Listen close and then you'll see,
It's all because the ego Me.

[RiverNotch]

Ego Me. A brief lesson in etymology: "ego" is also Latin for "I", as "me" is "me" in that language, so in a sense what you're saying here is "Ego Ego" or "Me Me", though I think this sense of redundancy is felt even without such philological trivia.

Crickets crick as frogs call out,
seeking everything about - This line should end with a period.

Were the same, us and them, - "We're" rather than "Were"; this line is also missing a syllable in the middle.
Repeating the same here and then - This line is closer to Iambic Tetrameter than the Trochaic Tetrameter you've otherwise established.

Don't they know it doesn't matter, 
Crying out such desperate chatter?

Yet still they try, can't seem to win - Lose "yet". More importantly, this couplet is missing a line.

What is Delusion if not faith,
in that we think that is our fate? - This couplet is entirely in Iambic Tetrameter.

But I'm not dumb, I'm not stupid, - Missing quotation marks.
Then show me that your logics lucid - "logic's", not "logics". This line again slips into IT, and it's again missing a period.

We talk and fight then turn to violence, - Again, IT.
When really we need to sit in silence - This line is closer to Iambic Pentameter, which is even further from your established rhythm. Plus, again, this line should end with a period.

Crickets crick and frogs call out
with nothing else to talk about. - IT again.

Listen close and then you'll see,
It's all because the ego Me. - IT again.

The mode here is quite old-fashioned---not only is there the suggestion of meter, but it's all in rhyming couplets---yet for such a mode to work, it demands polish. As for a more substantial critique....it'd probably be too much for "Basic", so I'll just say that what I said about the title sort of applies to the rest of the work.

[Deor Ana Log]

The ililicized "Me" at the end adds depth to this piece, but overall the rhymes in this piece are somewhat predicatable with leads to a less gratifying read. I recommend you extend the poem into different stanzas to add specificity and depth.

[patrickoday]

Ego Me. A brief lesson in etymology: "ego" is also Latin for "I", as "me" is "me" in that language, so in a sense what you're saying here is "Ego Ego" or "Me Me", though I think this sense of redundancy is felt even without such philological trivia.

Crickets crick as frogs call out,
seeking everything about - This line should end with a period.

Were the same, us and them, - "We're" rather than "Were"; this line is also missing a syllable in the middle.
Repeating the same here and then - This line is closer to Iambic Tetrameter than the Trochaic Tetrameter you've otherwise established.

Don't they know it doesn't matter, 
Crying out such desperate chatter?

Yet still they try, can't seem to win - Lose "yet". More importantly, this couplet is missing a line.

What is Delusion if not faith,
in that we think that is our fate? - This couplet is entirely in Iambic Tetrameter.

But I'm not dumb, I'm not stupid, - Missing quotation marks.
Then show me that your logics lucid - "logic's", not "logics". This line again slips into IT, and it's again missing a period.

We talk and fight then turn to violence, - Again, IT.
When really we need to sit in silence - This line is closer to Iambic Pentameter, which is even further from your established rhythm. Plus, again, this line should end with a period.

Crickets crick and frogs call out
with nothing else to talk about. - IT again.

Listen close and then you'll see,
It's all because the ego Me. - IT again.

The mode here is quite old-fashioned---not only is there the suggestion of meter, but it's all in rhyming couplets---yet for such a mode to work, it demands polish. As for a more substantial critique....it'd probably be too much for "Basic", so I'll just say that what I said about the title sort of applies to the rest of the work.

Thank you for the in-depth analysis. As this is my first poem, I figured there would be many errors. I actually deliberately left out the periods because I was uncertain if they were absolutely necessary. Being my first poem, I was focusing more on the meaning behind the words rather than the matching rhythm. Also, the couplet that I left missing a line I also did deliberately to create a change in the tone where in the beginning I was explicitly referencing the crickets and frogs while implicitly referring to the reader Me or just people in general. And then in the second half after the rough break of an incomplete couplet I shift to talking about Me explicitly.

And to address your etymological evaluation of the title, I think you misunderstand the meaning of Ego that I am using. In psychology, ego is the part of the personality that is most closely associated with self image or self conceit, which in moderation (like anything else) is probably good, but in this poem I aim to highlight how it may be responsible for the malevolence within ourselves. So, ego me. Me, refers to my body, mind, soul combination as a whole, and the ego refers to the egotistical side of the personality. Therefore the phrase ego Me is actually referring to the version of yourself overcome with ego.

[adagio]

I didn't mind the changes in rhythm, it worked for me pretty well. I actually enjoyed reading it.
What I would say in terms of critique?
This poem seems to rely mostly on logical reasoning. There are not too many metaphors or similes (the first adjective appears on line 6, which I think already tells me something, and then it continues without adjectives for a few more lines)
This is fine, I think. But then your chain of reasoning alone should be enough to hold the reader's attention, right? And I felt like towards the end you lost me – the connection between lines became weaker, and I could not follow you that well. Perhaps you could indeed change it somewhat to make your logic more lucid?