-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 03 December 1998 10:32
Subject: re: questions
>What poetry isn't appropriate for is to conduct a rationally constructed
>argument of political or scientific kind: prose is better, as Peter says.
But
>this applies to any rationally constructed or assembled material
>The problem with most politico-philosophico poetry is that reason and its
procedures are allowed to dominate the process because the weight of
information in the material has not been
>sufficiently internalised: the information isn't a real thing born in the
>poet's mind but is borrowed.
>All this is only to say that writing about weighty subjects is more
difficult
>than to write about loved hillsides under rainy weather that seems
tinctured
>by personal history. I see no reason to rule out any subject matter and
feel
>that the past is full of examples of unpromising material wrought into fine
>poetry.
You put it so well, Doug.
I wonder what list members think of the Journal Of Consciousness Studies'
appointment of a poetry editor? (Ivo Mosley)
I quote
Contributions should be
a) about consciousness
b) intellectually coherent
c) saying something that would not be properly expressed if said in prose
d) worked on so that not a word is out of place or in excess
Are b) and c) incompatible?
Should anyone succeed in this mythological task, submissions can be emailed
to [log in to unmask]
(A preparatory labour may be to overcome semantic anxieties about scientists
and scientism)
Terri )O(
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|