no jorie and slyvia haven't joined up yet but i was hoping to enlist, at
least one of them, relatively soon.
"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'"
Its in the fine details you know. Such as, re-cognizing that "it is raining"
does not necessarily ential that you either think nor mouth those words.
Re-cognition of the fact that it is raining suffices to perform the logical
relation. Being a poet-type i thought you have an appreciation for the fine
of the mind.
ciao,
d
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:43:19 -0000, Poetryetc provides a venue for a
dialogue relating to poetry and poetics wrote:
> 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.
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
|