-----Original Message-----
�·�o�l : pain <[log in to unmask]>
ˆ¶�æ : [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
“úŽž : 1999”N7ŒŽ24“ú 23:45
Œ�–¼ : RE: 'nuke' followup


>Dear Helen,
>
>I will gladly expound upon the point I made:
>
>The move in academia from action to language
>> is a prime example of the desire to become less involved --to rescind
upon
>> that traditional contract between the poet and reader --
>
>
>
>Over the years I have seen "displacement" activity in academia. When called
>to action they are more likely to discuss power matrices than what is
>actually there in front of them. They are divorced from the realities of
>what happens right in front of their noses. They use the high octane
>theories as a form of barrier --it prevents them from engagement. In the
>social sciences, a daughter and father are reduced to two pawns in cultural
>or gender theory, their actuality, their voices, and significance lost in
>theory. They are not named, they are categorised they are theorised --it is
>reification in reverse. Similarly on a wider scale when these theorists
>look at a war --they forget the people --they trade in terminology. I once
>remember a discussion in Paris on the topic, what is a terrorist?
>
>Look at Paul De Mann. He spent years telling us to de-face ourselves --and
>in the end, in life he was a Nazi collaborator. That was the "hero" of
>postmodern theory -- and Foucault, Barthes, you turn them over and look at
>their humanity, and often it is not a pretty sight --not a surprise that
>they chose to disguise this -to distance themselves from this -- reality.
>Derrida is looking at himself in the mirror --Kristeva has done so --many
>theorists have turned to autobiography and theory --because they want to
>recover themselves --they miss the dialogue. this is the project of many
>feminists --the return of the subject is also the project of Native
>Americans, Black Americans and many other ethnic minorities. They write "I"
>and mean "I" and expect the reader to know this. They are reclaiming the
>"I" because for so many years it had been denied to them. And it isn't a
>sad irony that when they wish to speak out in their own voices that their
>presence their existence is denied through theories that reify abstracts
and
>dehumanize. And yes I am angry. I have read reams and reams of theory that
>has its origins in Hegelian thought --Hegel! In the 21st century we still
>have a master/slave relationship with Hegel --isn't that downright kinky!
>Read Hegel. I have. Marx too. His book on capitalism is good read --but he
>was poor interpreter of Hegel and Hegel was lousy reader of Kant and so on.
>True they have their points --all insisted on a contract with the
>reader --all wanted that reader to understand their work and in marx's case
>act upon it. Several decades later we have the same bilge repackaged and
>placed in the context of language --yes praxis is now in language --it is a
>language act... I find it all depressing that we have so many inequalities
>in our respective societies and problems, but those who are in the position
>of doing something, would rather take risks with language than risk doing
>something. Now we have an intellectual paper factory-- I attended countless
>seminars where students who were fresh from school were exposed to
>theory --they drowned in it -- they had no time to read the primary
>texts --they had to spend all their precious time scurrying about looking
>for theory. And that is the same for Cam-Po --the poem is of secondary
>importance -it does not matter if it is absolute crap --as long as it is
>propped up by ...theory --a theory that is Eurocentric and will in a few
>years be remaindered --because the rest of the world people want poetry,
>they insist upon communication --and action. In the 1970's I was a union
>representative -- and I was young --and I remember how people were all in
>favour of taking action against the Chileans --and I said at the time--
that
>they should do something for the Refuseniks --Russian Jewish dissidents --
>and I spoke out. They shouted me down. I then took it further. I by myself
>went to my MP and got him to raise the matter in the house --which he did.
>It was rerported in the Telegraph. Osip Mandelstam wrote poetry that was
>esoterical but there was no mistaking the "risk" he took in writing a few
>lines about Stalin's moustache. If you wish to change things you must take
>that risk. I am willing to do that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Chris's post. In your post you mentioned 1) Einstein and 2) Bryan Adams.
>
>"Einstein is readily understood by everybody? We all know how the microwave
>works? Everyone here writes their own programmable media?"
>
> In the first you reasoned that if people can persevere with a difficult
>scientific tome by Albert Einstein, why can't they do the same with Lang-Po
>and Cam-Po productions? Well, perhaps the reward is different. One leaves
>reading a work by Einstein --with a real sense of awe, at his thought and
at
>the beauty of his theories --and this changes much of how we see ourselves,
>our relations with others and with the universe. So as more people could
>appreciate his theory --and like Hume did and many scientists and
>philosophers, he felt the need to simplify and make his work more coherent
>to the layman. He did not merely handover his notes to the publisher and
>present them to the public. Einstein, Freud and others constantly kept in
>mind the need to communicate, they certainly saw no need to needlessly
>complicate. Have you never heard of William of Ockham (?1280-1349) who came
>up with the following "Entities must not needlessly be multiplied" --in the
>philosophy of science this means that where there are two or more theories
>equally fitting all observed facts --the theory requiring the fewer or
>simpler assumptions is to be accepted as more nearly valid.
>
>With regard to your second point --another very unfortunate analogy
>
>While one lot of referents will be at ease with Brian Adams there are many
>others listening to Squarepusher. These bases for discussion are reductive
>and naive
>
>Are referents human beings? Is there a sense of elitism in your
comparisons?
>I am far from naive Chris. You sign off your letters with "love, love" etc.
>Is this intended --are we more than referents on this list? Of course we
>are, we are engaging in levels of discussions that would easily comply with
>Turing's test for humanity -- you ignore my postings when they seem to be
>outside your accepted parameters of what a discourse should be. I always
>invite discussion --never close it. You misunderstood my point --I am not
>arguing that poetry should be at all times accessible --my point was
>regarding specific poetry --poetry by writers who spend a great deal of
>their time "righting the wrongs" in the world --it seems that they are
>unwilling to risk communicating this in poetry, they would rather risk
>experiments with syntax than broadcast their discontent --they are
unwilling
>to write satire anymore etc. I will be honest with you, lang-po and Cam-Po
>are boring, no they are different in its extreme form than a catalogue one
>might find in Halfords for car parts --with the vital exception you can
>usually do something with those parts. It is a project that is
>ludicrous --there you are I even play with play -- lud -- Homo Ludens -- I
>read the like in classical poetry , in Ancient Chinese poetry they had been
>experimenting with sounds and layout -it is old hat --pattern verse --but
>the claim here is that the games are underpinned by sophisticated
>philosophical and cultural theories --what a load of bull. That
underpinning
>is dodgy --any structural engineer will tell you that. A botched job of
>theories --mish-mash -- a celebration of nonsense. And theorists go round
>like estate agents telling us that the house that Nietzsche built is solid
>as a rock. Oh look at the faucets designed by Ludwig Wittgenstein. And you
>call me naive? I always had a fondness for Albert Camus rather than
>Jean-Paul Sartre --Camus acted and wrote --Sartre called upon Nelson Algren
>to sort out people for him...
>
>
>The risk here is of meaning --people might actually find out the meaning to
>your poetry and then see it for what it is --and here we can have an
analogy
>drawn from popular culture --thousands of Japanese are disappointed to
>discover after they have learnt English the meaning of the lyrics which
they
>had loved to sing.
>
>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%