Hi Lawrence

I've just read both of your recent long replies together, so I'll answer
them together.

Yes, I do seem to have a predilection for polemic, which I can see gets me
into trouble a bit too often. You ask 'You wrote polemically - surely you
anticipated dispute' - I would say no, but rather that I actively sought
dispute. I don't have a problem being a little combative (which is why I
appreciate this correspondence), as long as it doesn't turn into some kind
of personally directed invective - I know that is not the case here.

'Evasion' - 'Tactics' - not necessarily in ourselves, but in the language we
are using, which itself becomes evasive, tactical as it fights these
guerilla skirmishes. A metaphor for this combative spirit - not an intended
slur on you or your replies to my guerilla mails. In any case, that is one
of the many joys of writing. I do stand by everything I said, there is no
evasion there.

You said: 'You haven't told me what you mean by some of your central  - in
this context - vocabulary'. Is that true? I think I have tried very hard to
say what I mean by every term that I have used that you have challenged. If
I haven't then let me know.

I am very interested in your comments about animals and there reasoning and
linguistic powers. I have to say, in fear of being branded otherwise, that I
too am very fond of animals, but I don't attribute the capacity for either
reasoning or language to any beings other than humans. To do so seems to me
a gross piece of anthropomorphism, which in fact denigrates animals rather
than celebrates their difference (something you obviously appreaciate as
well). Likewise I think it is wrong to talk about animals having 'rights',
which they are clearly incapable of exercising without human intervention
(animals untouched by human contact having no need of them). I admit to
having no idea where your references to Auschwitz, racism or fascism are
coming from, but I would deny any imputation that statements I have made
lead inevitably to the gas chamber (or that I would persecute our
quadrupedal cousins simply for having been misfortunate enough not to have
been born homo sapiens sapiens).

On the one hand talk of 'academic' poetry as being synonymous with the
'mainstream' is fairly common, but I would agree that we should be careful
with the term - that was the reason why I tried to make a distinction
between the 'academy' and academic in the demotic(!) sense of someone who
works at a university. By the first term I mean something quite specific,
and I used it, I think, in the context of the discussion on prose (which
clearly leads onto the next subject). By an academy I meant a distinctive
group of individuals who had developed some kind of specialised language
that they employed as 'experts' to provide 'answers' pertinant to their
field of study (see, I am trying to be exact!). Academic poets in this sense
would write a poetry that used a restricted vocabulary (both lexical and
stylistic) to produce something that among them they recognised as Poetry. I
think we would both agree that such a Poetry would be anathema to what we
are trying to do. By analogy, I would argue, that what such 'academic' poets
are in fact writing is prose, and again I obviously need to be specific
about what I mean. Prose is a form of language that IS distinct from speech
(and in this way, among others, distinguishes itself from poetry); it is
WRITTEN, codified, formalised and authoritative, it is always specific to a
particular utilitarian function (no room for phatic communion in prose), and
is ultimately sanctioned as the MEANS of telling the TRUTH (all in
capitalised letters). Neither poetry, novels or philosophy are written in
prose, because all these types of language are dialogic, open-ended, and
unrestricted. Another reason for thinking that what we are writing here is
the start of a poem!

I'm surprised (and not so surprised) that you should have picked me up on
'spiritual'. You got me doubting what I was saying too (which is a good
thing, of course), so I used the old trick of looking it up in my
dictionary. This is what the tatty old Chambers that I use in my office
gives for the first three definitions of 'spirit': 'n. vital principle: the
principle of thought: soul'. It also includes 'enthusiasm', 'animation',
'verve', 'courage' and 'essence' in addition to the obvious references to
spirits and ghosts and ghoulies (as well as alcohol). I think, therefore, it
was to these earlier definitions, and especially the 'principle of thought',
that I was referring. 'Soul', as far as I'm concerned, is no more than a
synonym of these other terms.

Thanks for the news of Jasper and Domino. Tell me more another time, they
sound interesting.

That's all for now.

Piers

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger