 |
 |
To John Kinsella (from an observer) Despite the fact that a poetry list should welcome a large sample of cultural ideologies--with all their inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes-- at present there seem to be a tendency not to allow people to identify with matters of their own choice or set their own terms for what will develop from the chosen direction. To come out with wounded responses or to claim that because a majority of members has asked for the expulsion of another (who has found responsible for transgressing the set rules), this expulsion has to take place, is like legitimizing the formation of a sort of crime tribunal with trials and condemnations. The rules set by this present tribunal seem to be based on a common consensus , but are, of course, completely arbitrary (as all rules ). The present tendency is dangerous and should be discouraged. Poetry should welcome diversity and be opened to discussion in whatever style. In some countries, Parliaments are composed of no less than 5, 6 conflicting parties, ( only superficially opposed to each other or hardly reconcilable). Nevertheless, those Parliaments are legal and active and can make rules , transcending oppositions and conflicts of interest or ideologies and different styles of conduct. The recent thread (EP, personae, associated matters) wished to establish codes and rules (but primarely it aimed to silence people which were considered radical or whose performance did not please some participants). As an observer, I feel one should be able to stand the presence and the behavior of those who have different ideologies or that come from different cultures. If a list member is using his own cultural communicative code, feeling in good faith not to offend others, the others should start from that very point and analyse what kind of culture that behavior originate from and what is the meaning of that performance within its original territory. I have the feeling and worry that the ongoing protest against pseudo entities is aiming to establish a hierarchy which has the power to decide punishments and set rules as universal , permanent and uncontestable, It seems in fact an attempt to establish a kind of totalitarism with Chief Executives charged of various Offices for Acceptance or Expulsion. As I read it, Acceptance is granted to a new Member only if he or she (once entered the established code of communication) starts acting in a respectful and almost servile way towards the few existing leading personalities. As I have argued , the recent Poetryetc World War II bears a complicated and ambivalent relation to modernist Politics. The dominant personalities who make claims baout this and that wish to impose as dominant themes their own cultural ideologies (Australian and British mainly: no German, Spanish, African around as yet) and act , in turn , as an Army aiming to plan aggression towards any intruders to re-establish the previous "order". In these periods of War, poetry matters seem to be hardly discussed and one breaths a general atmosphere of suspicion, which embitters a growing skepticism against the "other". Philosophical or theoretical discussions no longer to take place , and a sustaining and reliable relation between subject and object, mind and matter finally fails to exist. In these periods, one finds in the list no moment of literary insight and the only constituted acts of genuine signification are those against Imagination. Yours Antonio Gonzales %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%