Was aware of Swigart's work, but not _Directions_. Thank you for the tip.
No, my piece wasn't triggered by the Kamioka Observatory event. The source
of that poem( written two weeks ago) came from a kind of connection I was
after by conflating ancient history and myth with subatomic uncertainty.In a
sense (if this makes sense) I was trying to soften the difference between
knowledge and ignorance, in part because of my inability to think about it
in a concordant manner, particularly considering the limits of all language
and for my "poetic" ordinary language (versus, say, mathematical equations).
Yet, also, and perhaps more importantly, my interest in softening occurs
because I sense the relationship of knowledge and ignorance depends on the
material world's THINGLINESS-- rather than on, in contrast, an inexplicable
wash of objects.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: A Responsibility to Awe
> Oh, I'm sorry, Gerald--I didn't mean to seem to be NOT asking you for
> recommendations too (and I'm very glad of the tip on Allman, who's unknown
> to me). I was just responding to Peter's having said he was reading a lot
> more good science poetry these days.
> Also wanted to ask the both of you--and everybody else, while I'm at
> you've read Rob Swigart's _Directions_? It can be purchased at the
> Systems "serious hypertext" site for $19.95 (beyond my budget at the
> so haven't read it myself): http://www.eastgate.com/catalog/q14.html
> It's apparently based on the Periodic Table, which I once tried to
> reorganize as a poem for a junior high science class (failed!), and
> himself describes _Directions_ as "a quasi-sentimental pseudo-scientific
> hyperpoem." Be real interested to know what you think of it, if you know
> or care to slap down $19.95 for it. (Oh, and you should know that it's
> downloadable only to a Macintosh, plus requires a HyperCard.)
> One other thing re a comment Peter made on your poem about neutrino
> I'd half-assumed when I read it that the image was perhaps drawing on the
> terrible damage caused by the November 12th implosion at the Kamioka
> Observatory, photographs of which were published a few days later
> (http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/sk/photo/pmt-damage/index.html). Of
> course, this isn't a track left by neutrinos, but more like the storm
> left in their wake. Still, I did wonder if that's what you had in mind,
> knowing when your poem was written.
> on 1/11/02 1:40 PM, schwartzgk at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > Candice:
> > While I know your question was directed to Peter, I'd like to chime in
> > a poetry-of-science/science poetry selection, Scenarios for a Mixed
> > Landscape by American poet, John Allman (1986, New Directions).
> > Not exclusively brimming with "science poems", the volume houses poems
> > attempt, at one level, to look back to the changing, "mythical" universe
> > Lucetius' of benign random change. But he does more: his work brings
> > insights cast in the words of science, evolution. There ARE awesome
> > possibilities in what he's made.
> > Gerald
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Candice Ward" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: A Responsibility to Awe
> >> Let me add my thanks to Gerald's, Peter, since I found your comments on
> > his
> >> poem instructive too--and I'll definitely be asking you to vet my own
> >> eventually, if you can spare the time when the time comes. In the
> >> (ahem!), can you recommend any other science-poetries as highly as
> > Elson's,
> >> or at least point us toward some of that "good stuff" you say you're
> > reading
> >> "these days"?
> >> To clarify my point about Sokal being a throwback to the "two cultures"
> >> school of (mutually alienated or estranged) thought, remember that his
> >> _Social Text_ hoax began with his own inability to penetrate the
> > of
> >> critical theory and his assumption on the basis of his own limitations
> > there
> >> that it wasn't comprehensible or substantive at all. That indicates to
> >> such a profound arrogance about one's own normative status and an
> >> profound disrespect toward specialized knowledges other than one's own
> > to
> >> leave Sokal way behind, out of step with, the spirit and the letter of
> >> art/science interplay happening now. (What his reputation is as a
> > physicist,
> >> have no idea--but I have my doubts!)
> >> Finally, thank you, Gerald, for that beautiful post on Lucretius, which
> >> printed out and have reread several times now with great pleasure!
> >> Candice