Dear Ali,
Its interesting that you say this because it is essentially more than
obvious that poetry can not exist without its interdependence on the
logical grammar of language. Poetry can not step outside language although
it can do new and interesting things with language. There is no non-
linguistic articulation. Someone who is choking makes a desperate attempt
to articulate that he is choking. If he is understood he is understood in
the pretence of language. Indeed he is performing language. Any expression
completed in communication is language performed. I think some of your
angst against the logical grammar of language is that you seem to think
this is synonymous with the definitions provided in the dictionary. This is
not so. The dictionary lists common understanding, grammar that you learn
in school is not the essential logical foundation of language. This
foundation can not be articulated, that is the point and it allows the
freedom of use because it is so foundationally basic. That this logic
accords with how we perceive the world, reveals that nature itself (as it
appears in us) performs in this same logic. As Wittgenstien noticed, "Logic
fills the world". I often thought that poets would get a lot out of reading
Wittgenstien. This is not a call to intellecualism in poetry but there is a
potential in poetry to elucidate this foundational relationship between the
person and the world (or nature). In my book this is beauty. Even more so
if it reveals intelligence. And not intelligence of statistical endeavor
but of pure intelligence, that which perceives the accord of nature and the
mind.
"Language will be the death of poetry. For those keen on
philosophical implications of grammer and such trite, I suggest undertaking
a degree in literature and memorising Derrida. Poetry is about the non-
linguistic striving for articulation. breath, syllable, form, measure,
narrative, myths, memories and ENERGY are our devices in using the words of
a language WITHOUT submitting to their defined or logical (grammatical)
usage"
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:56:06 +1100, ALI ALIZADEH <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Hi folks
>
>This is I guess a response to the recent arguing about the politics and
ethics of
>language and the place of poetry in all this. Well, I've got a little
observation to
>share with yous: Language will be the death of poetry. For those keen on
>philosophical implications of grammer and such trite, I suggest
undertaking a degree
>in literature and memorising Derrida. Poetry is about the non-linguistic
striving
>for articulation. breath, syllable, form, measure, narrative, myths,
memories and
>ENERGY are our devices in using the words of a language WITHOUT submitting
to their
>defined or logical (grammatical) usage. Intellectualism has been the
plague of
>contemporary poetry. DON'T write poetry that is a show-case of your
superior
>intellect to show-off your vast vocabulary and PLEASE if you do write such
garbage
>DON'T publish it. Have mercy. There are, as estimated, four hundred people
or less
>left who purchase poetry in Australia. PLEASE let's hold on to them. I,
THE POET,
>NEEDS THEM! It's a plea. Can we not scare them away? I really REALLY don't
want to
>write prose. It bores me shitless and makes me suicidal; have mercy.
>
>Ali A
|