I know what you are saying, Christine, but scientific language, philosophy
and mathematics defines all its major words and concepts and that language
is used exclusively inside that definition and inside that world. Yes and
poetry aspires to precision, that is its goal, and to do that it uses all
the qualities to which you refer, but it is an aspiration isn't it rather
that an accomplished fact? For instance, I might write 'Time hung
heavily....' ( pardon the cliché)but while this conveys meaning in a poetic
sense it is rubbish in a scientific sense for time is not a physical thing,
it is without mass or position, it cannot hang and neither can it have
weight. It is this point that I am making that science is difficult to write
about in a poetic manner, difficult but not impossible. I owe John a pint
BTW. Regards Arthur. PS Did you get that other poem I sent you off site??.
A----- Original Message -----
From: "Bousfield, Christine [CES]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Minimalism:(SallyE)


> Arthur
> Much of importance here but i don't agree that scientific language is more
> precise-that's poetic language for me and of course nothing can ever be
> fully said-we attempt to 'express the inexpressible' (ouch!). That's why
> nothing can be ruled out or in-it depends on sound, rhythm, economy,
> extravagance, the whole object of the poem and its context.
> BW
> Christine
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arthur seeley [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 13 November 2002 17:16
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:      Re: Minimalism:(SallyE)
> >
> > I know I used the word 'Rhythm' myself but for me that word implies that
> > your notation of dips and dashes can be then analysed into iambs and
> > trochees and what-have-yous and then counted and ordered. That is fine
for
> > your sonnets and traditional forms.
> > The freer mode of writing should also recognise 'Rhythm' but I prefer to
> > call it 'pulse' . This follows the normal patterns of speech but there
is
> > that undertow of 'pulse' which does not necessarily submit to the dips
and
> > dashes analysis but still is present and dictates the pace of the poem.
Am
> > I making sense? It is a complex issue but that pulse is as relevant to
the
> > music of a poem as the sounds of the words themselves. Still thinking
> > about this one. Regards Arthur.
> >
> >       ----- Original Message -----
> >       From: Sally Evans <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >       To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >       Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:41 PM
> >       Subject: Re: Minimalism:
> >
> >       Interesting, Arthur.
> >
> >       I agree with you very much about reading the poems aloud. It
always
> > helps to spot rhythm  failings, which some writers are more prone to
than
> > others.
> >       When I get muddled in mid-poem I often write out the poem in
dashes
> > and dips (I cant find suitable characters on the typewriter. dips are
> > those little u shapes you get in rhymn notations.
> >       That usually helps me to hear the rhymths of all the verses and
see
> > any that don't match the rest.
> >
> >       Re the scientific use of language, I believe it is very different
> > from poetic use of language and  poets get into difficulties when trying
> > to mix them. imho a poem that includes a lot of info should really have
> > the info in a footnote or preliminary note or enconsed in the title.
> >
> >       bw
> >       SallyE
> >
> >       on 13/11/02 11:16 am, arthur seeley at [log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >               You raised some interesting points in your message to
> > Christina in response to your poem 'Bang'.
> >               I like to think of 'minimalism' as a style or form rather
> > than a guiding principal. I have said here before, with tongue in cheek,
> > that push minimalism to its limits and the 'rest is silence'. However,
> > from my own personal standpoint, I so enjoy the act of writing that I
know
> > that I often tend towards the lyrical and when I have written something
I
> > shall leave it, and the creative ecstasy of that time, which is often an
> > indulgence and even slightly onanistic, and return later to'craft' the
> > piece. This more often than not involves trimming, cutting, often the
most
> > beautiful phrase ( IMO *grin*) is dumped.
> >               As to rhythm, I always read my poem out loud and often
find
> > myself editing in mid-read when the actual voicing of the piece shows
> > where the rhythm falters. But it seems that rhythm is a personal thing
> > because what I find flows smoothly is said by others to be not so
smooth.
> > I find this disconcerting at first but I try to remember that what I
hear
> > here in my room is a broad Yorkshire voice and the person commenting on
> > the lack of rhythm is a Southerner, Scot, American, North and South,
> > Geordie, Australian, etc so there will be,almost inevitably I suppose,
> > differing readings. At the same time does the reader, eye read or voice
> > read our work? It is relevant.
> >               In another message to you about 'Bang' I commented on the
> > difficulties of writing about philosophy and science. I do not say it is
> > impossible you might note, but difficult.
> >               The difficulties arise because poetry is about words,
their
> > meaning, their sounds, their arrangement on the paper/screen. We use
those
> > words to explore our life, its meaning and purpose, the way other people
> > react to us and to life and so on and so on. As poets we are bedevilled
by
> > the imprecision of words, the way meaning slips and eludes before we can
> > nail it down, what we explore is imprecise, vague, viewed through a
glass
> > darkly, but poetry allows us to tackle these things in a particular way.
> > We, I think, use poetry to order our own understanding of this world and
> > all the countless experiences of sight, sound, taste, smell and touch
and
> > all the attendant emotions. Then we offer our partial resolution, for it
> > can never be total, for the enjoyment of others.
> >               But science and philosophy, in pursuit of the same
> > understanding, requires more precision and language is not enough often
to
> > reason out the truth, whatever that is, and so scientists resort to
> > another more precise language, in which argument and deduction and
> > induction can follow seamlessly, and that language is Mathematics.
However
> > since Godel Mathematics has been found to be enormously practical but
> > riddled with uncertainty. Despite that it remains more precise than
> > literal language. Bob commented that he had noted that scientists were
> > always saying 'like......' and this is because language does not allow
> > them to explain clearly and so they must resort to analogy in
explaining,
> > a scientific concept, to the layman.
> >               You mentioned 'Four Quartets' in an earlier response to a
> > poem and how that is philosophical but is filled with imagery eg the
> > Chinese vase, the bird in the garden because as Eliot complains in the
> > same poem words slip and slide and change meanings, he , too, requires
> > analogy.
> >               One last piece to this dreadfully long message and it is
> > worthy of deep thought when writing about the Big Bang and that is
> > theoretically Time and Space began in an instant but then so did all the
> > physical laws that govern the behaviour of all the energy and matter
that
> > began at that moment.  NONE OF THE LAWS OF SCIENCE EXISTED BEFORE THE
> > BB.So we cannot argue about 'before' the BB because there was no
'before'
> > and nature might abhor a vacuum now but we cannot conject any further
back
> > and know what Nature abhorred, ( if that makes sense).
> >               Thanks for you time Regards Arthur.
> >
> >
> >
> >