I have time to say that Freud set up a static picture in light
of his biology background whereas Fairbairn socialised it into
a dynamic creating the Object RElations school of psychiatry.
The big battle now is between the Object RElations people
and the evolutionary biologists encapsulated in the new books
by Oliver James and Steven Pinker which I intend to read when
they come out in paperback. They both must be partly right.
Douglas Clark, Bath, England mailto: [log in to unmask]
Lynx: Poetry from Bath .......... http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Douglas Clark wrote:
> I am thinking that Freud wrote a very long time ago, as did Fairbairn,
> and things are bound to have moved on. Particularly so when you
> see what is coming out of evolutionary biology now.
>
> Regarding truth every genuine poet invents his own myth and tries
> to be consistent to it. Whether the myth is true or not is irrelevant.
> But a private world is created and transcribed to paper and attracts
> a readership if people enter it and are entertained. That is called
> being a poet.
>
> And regards writing I wait until words pop out of mu unconscious
> and establish themselves to be built into a poem. If you go looking
> for words ou are liable to produce inferior copy, unless you are
> a natural prose writer like Seamus. But the older you get the rarer
> this happens which is why poetry is essentially a game for the young.
> But the few poems coming from older people tend to have more depth.
>
>
>
> Douglas Clark, Bath, England mailto: [log in to unmask]
> Lynx: Poetry from Bath .......... http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html
>
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Chris Jones wrote:
>
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > When I am working on writing projects I think I get really obsessive.
> > Deleuze is about the limit of my philosophical knowledge and I can get
> > obsessive about that too, since it helps to solve problems in the
> > writing projects.
> >
> > The cracked ego is just something I imagined. It was one of those
> > situations where you are not happy with what you have already in terms
> > of what you are trying to write and by being disiplined and forcing
> > yourself to write you write crap, or something you are still not happy
> > with. Then I saw your post and it more or less made things click. So, in
> > a sense I am talking about something different. I doubt if I am the only
> > one who has had such an experience.
> >
> > The cracked ego I imagined is not really about schizophrenia or being
> > psychotic. I actually keep away from using the term schizophrenia and
> > don't really take it up in Deleuze and Guattarri simply because I know
> > psychosis is painful and I can find the term painful. D&G also say the
> > term schizophrenia they use is not clinical schizophrenia. Rather in
> > D&G's usage, it is a philosophical term taken from Freud who said
> > schizophrenia treats the concrete as abstract.
> >
> > Anyway, what I imagined were these characters I need which have to be
> > really strong characters and the sort of strength you were describing
> > fitted into the characters, in a way that was useful to my imagination.
> > Freud describes the Ego as being produced in a sort of layering like an
> > onion. The ego seems to me then like a type of world and I imagined
> > this layering becoming so strong and also so hard it starts to get these
> > little cracks on the surafce of the ego-world and the cracks keep on
> > moving or the cracks keep going and it was the cracks in the surface of
> > the ego which made me feel like these characters can be really nice
> > people, so to speak. In other words, a type of poetry starts to happen
> > in these characters in the cracks. It resonates with the Earth, also,
> > which is cracking up because it doesn't like what is happening on the
> > surface, in my story.
> >
> > I am not against sticking with reality, at all, don't get me wrong...
> > but I am a day dreamer who likes being off with the fairies. I don't
> > like my lived experience, my reality, what is happening, so I would
> > rather live in fairyland.... oh, fairyland, my own private fairyland;
> > here I am truly happy. But first, I must negotiate my way there. It
> > takes a lot of strength to get to fairyland. (Is that a fictional I or
> > my so called real I... I can't be sure of that.)
> >
> > Anyway, it was like one of those things from left field, some other
> > topic, that was useful to my topic, too. I just wanted to say thanks,
> > really, in the end.
> >
> > best wishes
> >
> > Chris Jones.
> >
> > Douglas Clark wrote:
> >
> > >I havent the technical intellect to cope with much philosophy
> > >but I regret never finding a book by Deleuze (or D&G) in the
> > >bookshop to buy and have a try at reading (I did spot a
> > >Deleuze book a month ago but it didnt appear to be relevant).
> > >And I am a simple soul.
> > >
> > >REgarding the 'cracked ego' I cant interpret the term.
> > >I base my thinking on my personal experience. And if you
> > >suffer from schizophrenia and depression it is vital
> > >to have a strong I to surface out of the weakness of the
> > >personality (I should say I havent had a schizophrenic
> > >episode for nearly twenty years). You hang onto the I
> > >to maintain your place in the world.
> > >
> > >And regarding the I there is nothing wrong with Dom's idea
> > >of fictionalising it. Great fun. A good peg to hang the
> > >language of poetry on. All poets are liars. But for me
> > >I dont like straying too far from the truth because
> > >the truth is what holds me together.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Douglas Clark, Bath, England mailto: [log in to unmask]
> > >Lynx: Poetry from Bath .......... http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html
> > >
> > >On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Chris Jones wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>I must check this out! Thanks Mark.
> > >>
> > >>I is dead, the poet said.
> > >>
> > >>/That aint grammatical, Poet.
> > >>
> > >>/(Of course, you do know I am God, and God is dead.)/
> > >>/
> > >>
> > >>Dom wrote:
> > >>But the point may simply be to
> > >>get the view from somewhere else: an immanent perspective can still be
> > >>an impersonal one, since not all of the things in the world capable of
> > >>having a perspective are persons.
> > >>
> > >>Dom, this can be wild.... I am thinking something along this line about
> > >>an immanent I that is no longer human, no longer a three dimensional
> > >>character that is a distinct person. A type of irresponsible production
> > >>by a dead God and so forth.
> > >>
> > >>Douglas Barbour wrote: It's not so much to get rid of the 'I' as to let
> > >>it go free,
> > >>
> > >>Doug, this really does sound like a rather Deleuzian thing to say. (D&G
> > >>argue this in the Rhizome Plateau, for example, and perhaps demonstrates
> > >>the conventionality of D&G, as well, if you can read through my
> > >>flippancy. I do agree.)
> > >>
> > >>Where does this thing come from that says: get rid of the I or don't
> > >>use it or using I is bad or whatever? It may have something to do with
> > >>the critique of the Subject in recent philosophy (and theory) but it
> > >>would be a crude reading which simply claims; don't say I. Lacan's
> > >>argument, from memory, that even when not using I, as in so-called
> > >>objective language like journalism, there is still an implied I (so long
> > >>since I read Lacan.)
> > >>
> > >>Douglas Clarke's post about the ego and needing to get the I and have a
> > >>strong ego to write poetry I read as saying very much the same thing. (I
> > >>think it was Doug Clarke, in a recent post. I wanted to keep the remark
> > >>but can't find it, oh well.) Anyway, rather then giving this ego and I a
> > >>Freudian reading in this post, which I felt didn't really work in terms
> > >>of Freud's theory of the ego, there is another reading of gathering the
> > >>I, making it a strong ego, and letting that go in poetry. In this sense
> > >>this ego can be a cracked ego. It becomes too strong and it cracks
> > >>itself, so to speak. In this freedom of the crack poetry happens. I may
> > >>be giving Doug Clarke's comment a reading which may not be intended and
> > >>running away with another reading, but it was a wonderful comment to
> > >>make, so I am happy to run away with it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Douglas Barbour also wrote
> > >>> So where is the auto/bio/graphical that is not
> > >>>also fictional, that is constructed within the poem?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I have just been reading this PhD thesis (Alistair Welchman , Wild above
> > >>rule or art, Warwick, 1995) which finds a thought in Milton's Paradise
> > >>Lost about the production of matter and the problem of hylomorphism.
> > >>There are two things happening, first the epic poem is already
> > >>theretical but also the thesis writer runs away with this thought and
> > >>puts it inside non-fiction prose, the academic technical language of
> > >>philosophy, which is constrained by the rigors of logic such as logical
> > >>contradiction and impossibility. A distinction then can be made between
> > >>non-fiction prose and poetry where poetry does not know the rules of
> > >>logic such as contradiction and impossibility. Does poetry then only
> > >>know the possible? Perhaps only in the sense of exhaustion which
> > >>leaves only possibility? If poetry does not know the impossible then it
> > >>also cannot know the possible, perhaps. Perhaps it only knows what is
> > >>unknown? Anyway, to leave the thesis (which goes on to argue for wild
> > >>intransitive production after being infected by Milton) it also becomes
> > >>obvious that placing prose fiction like short stories and novels with
> > >>poetry is a more useful move then the verse/ prose distinction. Then
> > >>questions arise as to biography, such as Edmund White's biography of
> > >>Genet. Is this a non fiction biography or another Edmund White novel? It
> > >>could be read as fiction. Anyway, to get to the point, distinctions
> > >>rather then being absolute or set in place, can become mobile and be
> > >>made for whatever may be useful. (You make up your own distinction as
> > >>you need them.) So confessional can become say dramatic monolog, for
> > >>example. Fiction as nomadic. The I word can be given a simliar treatment
> > >>so as it no longer refers to the private production that is me and is
> > >>always distinctly me. I can become landscape, for example, which may
> > >>involve a sort of flattened character, ala JG Ballard. In the
> > >>distinctions I may make this would have more to do with poetry then
> > >>prose. It is a free I. I can do what I damn well like!
> > >>
> > >>I have just been reading again joanne burns's monolog, real land. An
> > >>excerpt follows:
> > >>
> > >> i'm gonna be free, travel round and see real land. not
> > >>maps in books, travel round in me own wheels. not gonna have any
> > >>boss breathin down me neck all day. think i'll be a semi-trailer
> > >>driver. out on the road with me tranny. ridin high in the cabin
> > >>wearin what i like.
> > >>
> > >>that i character infected a character some time ago now which I am
> > >>writing as third person and as an i character. Enouh anyway, I rave too
> > >>long. (The lower case i also interests me, BTW)
> > >>
> > >>best wishes
> > >>
> > >>Chris Jones.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
|