>In the cognitive processes that enable us to relate to the world
>symbolically (this is taken from no theorist, is just an idea of mine) we
>necessitate the eye to take in visions and translate them into concepts and
>then language (arbitrary words).
>What create metaphorical language is the camera-eye which selects and
>frames things which are out there, available.
>The camera-eye (Barthes’s Camera lucida) catches what is significant , I
>presume, either for pure abstract and absolute aesthetical reasons or what
>is layered down in the mind already loaded with meaning and therefore
>significant.
>…. what you say about cognitive processes is essential to poetry: in fact
>it is just what is already there, layered down and stratified in the mind –
>not always by means of rationalized experiences (what we make of fear love
>hate and so on) but by means of assigned capability of taking in knowledge
>(our mind potentials in Chomsky’ s terms). Therefore poetry itself
>coincides with the ability to utter, shape and conceive languages as
>systems (of signs and symbols). Meaning (and I do believe this): every
>single human being makes poetry while speaking (in fact the creation of
>metaphors is a main device for all languages and is an ability of all minds)
>
Dear Erminia
cf George Steiner's On Translation (I think it was called...?)...
Doug
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
I put the difficulty down to god
Who failed to be unambiguous in such matters
Eli Mandel
|