But surely now what you're talking about is perception, a perception based
upon recognition memory, which is a learnt response, not innate or bestowed
from on high. And if you boil down that recognition through the process of
acquisition you'll find it's based on little more than Yes/No, as when a
child learns that some things mean danger. So your logical relations end up
with the startling revelation of 'on/off', or 'pulse/no pulse', which is
about as much as a computer can be said to 'know'.


db


----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Jab <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: statement


> 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/