But, Hal, can theory be viewed without writing?
mj
Wenn vollkommene Herrschaft über seinen Gegenstand die freie kunstreiche
Ausbildung desselben möglich macht, so können doch die künstlichen
Schraubengänge der Polemik nicht die Form der Philosophie sein.
If perfect mastery of one's subject makes its free, artistic development
possible, then the merely artificial turns of the polemical screw cannot be
the form of philosophy.
F.W.J. Schelling
----- Original Message -----
From: Halvard Johnson
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughtmesh Snap
What do you mean when you say "no writing can be viewed
without theory"? I'd say that any writing can be viewed
without theory.
Hal
"My experience is what I agree to attend to."
--William James
Halvard Johnson
================
[log in to unmask]
http://sites.google.com/site/halvardjohnson/Home
http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
http://www.hamiltonstone.org
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> also, not to harp too much on the subject, but the key words in my
original
> post were "on its own". it's true that no writing can be viewed without
> theory, but ultrapostmodernist poetry seems to require the tinted glasses
> of
> a theory that, to me, feels strained & alien. even if it makes me a pleb,
> and even though I know views are wont to shift around, at the moment I'd
> rather produce something good within a norm than produce something bad
> outside of one.
>
> KS
>
> 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > I will say I appreciate the idea in provoking sneers at "a poetry field
> > crowded by would-be sincerists unwilling to own up to their poems’
> > self-aggrandizing, sentimental, bloviating, or sexist tendencies". then
> > again I see nothing wrong with aggrandizement or sentimentality if it
> isn't
> > done vacuously, or naïvely. on my own part I can't do much in the way of
> > rooting out such in my own writing, being a called-out naif myself. I do
> > what I can with my pupating awareness and ability.
> >
> > KS
> >
> > 2009/5/11 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > I was curt, but I stand by the opinion, which comes from an albeit
> >> non-postmodern stance. I know of flarf poetry, and one quote I found
> from
> >> Joshua Corey sums up what preconceptions I have of it: "I admire the
> >> subversive energy of the project, the daring of setting out to write
> >> deliberately bad poetry so as to put our received ideas of "the poetic"
> into
> >> question."
> >> that's all well & good, but it's still bad poetry to me. I'd rather
read
> >> GOOD poetry that questions our received ideas of 'the poetic'.
> >>
> >> KS
> >>
> >> 2009/5/10 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> >>
> >> I detect no evidence you understand it, or "flarf" at all. To elicit
> the
> >>> comment "bad
> >>> poem" from a naif signals success in that range.
> >>>
> >>> Barry Alpert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:28:26 +0300, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >if nothing else, it's a bad poem on its own.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >2009/5/6 Barry Alpert <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> >
> >>> >> THOUGHTMESH
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Video shocked selfless publishing.
> >>> >> Innovation featured fact editors edited.
> >>> >> Ambition benefitted conceptual shocked video.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Barry Alpert / Silver Spring, MD US / 5-6-09 (8:16 AM)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Unconsciously referencing traditional forms with its 14 words, 3
> >>> lines, &
> >>> >> the "rhyme" of its
> >>> >> conclusion with its opening. Also an unexpected variant on my
> >>> >> severely-edited workings
> >>> >> with the strategies of "flarf".
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
