SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEAM


ah, I feel better after that.


So it's Jorie Grahame and Sylvia Plath as the vessels of the logical new
order, eh?


I think I'm going to take up something less dangerous to my mind than
poetry, like heroine addiction.


How about Christian Morgenstern and Lewis Carroll, Daniel?

You know when I see the rain, rather than thinking 'It is raining' I tend to
have thoughts like 'oh fuck it's Monday morning' or the very primitive
cave-grunt 'Rain'. Interesting triplex isn't it: noun, copula, process?
Which is which, which is being which? Is it the rain that is raining or the
raining, rain? The rain in raining rains mainly in the rain.

Oh lord, there are leaves on the tree, in its open arms.


I would like to sign this but my synapses have just collapsed.


d-d-duh-duhr



----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: statement


> >Where are the leaves before they are "on" the tree?
> >Are they not in the tree?
>
> Well, it seems fairly obvious that leaves are only leaves when they are on
> the tree. Before they unfurl, the thing is called a "bud" not a leaf.
>
> >Surely all of your logical grammar depends on a set view of seeing the
> >world.
>
> No, I am not advocating a set view. I am talking about the fundamentals of
> thinking, such as logical relation and logical form (concept). Whether
what
> you say is illogical or logical (as in what you call "breaking the rules")
> is irrelevant to the logic that confines it. Whatever you say is either
> logical or illogical. And it is only illogical because logic makes it so.
> So either way, you obey logic. Even in your so-called "linguistic
> disobedience".
>
> >Logic is only bound by its own rules.
> >Break through those rules and it falls apart.
>
> Well if you had any grasp of the issue, you would immediately see that
> logic can not have rules. The rules are derived from logic but the rules
> can not say what logic is. The law of contradiction, for example, is a
> principle that states a certain feature, a certain manifestation of logic,
> but what makes it so can not itself be stated. The rules, or laws, only
> show an obvious conformance to logic.
>
> >
> >If you cannot see past the logic, past absolute truth, then how can we
> >express it to you?
>
> I do not necessarily think that logic means absolute truth, truth is the
> agreement between a logical form and the feature in the world. And the
> reason that you can't express this to me is that there is no way to "see
> past" logic. As poets, it may be a hard pill to swallow, only because we
> tend to see logic as logitians do. Logic is not a strict code and neither
a
> lifeless method. How i see it is that, in a poem that is particularly
> effective a new logical thread is woven between a certain feature in the
> world or nature and the mind. In this, is certainly a novel beauty and it
> does not in any way diminish anything from poetry to re-cognize this.
> Indeed I feel that, at least for poems that really touch me, such as a
> Jorie G. or a Plath, i can see in the relations that they make a NEW and
> beautiful logical thread. That is not easy to do but when it is
> accomplished it is beautiful. I suppose it takes a new conception of what
> logic is to see it in this way.
>
> I suppose many of you feel that it takes away from the freedom of writing
> poetry when someone tries to introduce a fundamental order into the nature
> of thought. However i feel it is just the opposite and have witnessed what
> a difference it has made in my own writing to be able to see logic in this
> way and then learn to use it to achieve new dimensions of creativity that
> truly speak effectively. Anyhow, this is my take on it.