Hi Jon,
I don't quite follow? I mean, we don't have souls, and certainly not
immortal ones: though you did make me smile at that thought, and that
wonderfully bankrupt tradition too. There's so much that's new in the world,
we can't be constantly be going back over the same ground, though I know
you're trying too here. Plato didn't know about stem cells, or nuclear
power, or black holes. If I learn something new I don't personally *feel I'm
remembering it. Though I'm impressed you think you do know everything and
have merely forgotten.
> Take a rondeau and say as nearly as possible the same thing in prose.
> The difference is the meaning of the form.
Okay, I'd like to go with the flow, let's take four lines, each of a regular
syllabic pattern, separated by a line space and ending in alternating
rhymes, and let's follow your argument that this has a meaning independent
of the words. What does it mean for you? I think I remember it's about a
vacuum for me.
>> But one doesn't hear a form.
> On the contrary, one can only perceive poetic form aurally.
Sure, some poetic form is obviously aural. Nursery rhymes obviously so. What
form do you hear when listening to the Four Horsemen? I mean all poetry has
a form. it couldn't be written down or recited without a form. In that sense
though I guess I am in agreement here, that one does perceive it this way,
after all I could hardly argue that I can perceive a formless poem. But
surely it's now the *only way to perceive form. Most people work these
things out on paper, I'd've thought.
In half-remembered glee
Returning from a pee
C
|