On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 12:05:15 -0700 Mark said:
>I missed neither the irony nor at whom it was directed, and it pissed me
>off. Nor do I think that Phil was restricting himself to the issue of
>"common sense" when he named its enemies.
Yes, you're right, it was I who misread the last part of Phil's post.
I though the little ditty 'to the tune of "The Red Flag"' was a jab
at complacent intellectuals in general, not just Marxist intellectuals.
>
>I was not primarily interested in the topic of "common sense," because I
>find it simply ridiculous. One can't divorce from the term's history its
>use as a challenge to all change, all advancement of knowledge. Except as a
>convenient phrase in everyday speech I'm not sure what other use it has.
>"Common sense," after all, is not susceptible to proof. But we disagree and
>won't convince each other.
>
Who said anything about proof? Who denied the term's history? I was
merely pointing out that this "ridiculous" term may have a positive or
at least neutral meaning which is not so easily susceptible to these
moralistic/politically-correct/propagandist spins which some people
just can't wait to plant on every word. You want to dismiss this
topic - but what about the other one I pushed your way? How, in
practical common-sense terms, would you see poets relate and apply
what they are doing to the political concerns you voice? Or do
you just want to remain safely in the realm of the moral high
generalities? It seems like this relates a good deal to the
totality/poetry question. I don't have an easy answer - do you?
For one thing, I think writing poetry - or creating art in general -
is a developmental process with its own not-so-measurable speed
and direction(s). Which varies from person to person. Yet there
are very probably productive and valuable ways to approach this question.
- Henry
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|