 |
 |
I've stayed out of this discussion so far since my conception of philosophy is pretty far from that of a Hegelian Marxist (though not so far from the Marxism of G. A. Cohen, who, I am inclined to guess, has done more to _clarify_ Marx's thought than any other human being, clarity not being what Hegel and his epigones have most assiduously cultivated), but since wider contribution has been solicited... 1. Does the notion of totality being courted here mean anything more than "the world is everything that is the case"? Perhaps with a restriction to what is the case economically and politically, since these are taken to be the only things that matter ontologically, causally and ethically? 2. It has been suggested by egg via Ben Watson that "By seeing everything in relation to everything else, things move". _Everything_?? So my eyelash colour should be seen as related to the publication date of Goedel's second incompletenesss theorem? And how does this putative holistic vision make anything move? I think I've read something recently discussing Jameson mooting that the more accurately you describe the Totality, the more likely you are to be a prisoner of despair, since its very 'totality' would seem to preclude change. 3. What makes poetry specially able to grapple with this titan? Why aren't something like Zola's novels or 'Gravity's Rainbow' a better artistic medium for that? (Not endorsing the latter view, just confused here.) 4. Keston has suggested that Pound, Prynne and Wordsworth are somehow exemplary in facing up to the Total Poetry Challenge, or something like that. I can understand Pound and Prynne here, I think, but why Wordsworth? Is The Prelude the poem to think of here? Waiting for the arrows goodhumouredly, ht %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%