Dear Christine,
             I must disagree with you, as I think scientific language must
be more precise than poetic language. The whole purpose of scientific
language, it seems to me, is express something precisely and objectively.
Whether scientic observation can ever achieve the objectivity which it
aspires to is another matter.
 Surely what a scientist is trying to do is to express something in a way
that everyone will understand it in exactly the same way - to avoid at all
costs any ambiguity, -which is something a poet doesn't do. For me, it is
the difference between attempting to narrow meaning, -and to open meanings
out.
 I get quite annoyed with some poems for their sloppiness of thought, -as if
because it's a poem, you don't have to worry about things like logic or
commonsense, and you can burble on about scientific and philosophical ideas
, ignoring the underlying principles of these disciplines -that they involve
reason, rather than pure feelings. In other words, your brain has to be in
gear and well-oiled - woofle, with a bit of jargon, won't work.
Kind regards,
  grasshopper

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bousfield, Christine [CES]" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Minimalism:(SallyE)
> 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
> > 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.
> >
>       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.
> >> >
> >
>