"Doesn't that mean that it comes from a part of you that
is (as yet) eluding speech/words. " You write.
Yes. I think all creative activity, like creation, comes from
a place which eludes definition, speech/words, intellection.
I have a grandson who is autistic. He is a beautiful little
boy and looks like my brother and I when we were young.
He cannot speak. I relate well to him without speech:
I connect with him without speech. I was surprised by this
at first, but should not have been. However, he is learning
to speek, because after all intellectual speech is superior to
the silence that can communicate.
Without speech from him, we both are prevented from getting
into the problems that intellect can bring to us. We have
eliminated one level of the human problem.
I, personally, would never "analyze" the pre-intellectual level.
I remember Tennessee Williams' fear of analysis, therapy, since
he felt, or thought, it would interfere with his creativity. I am afraid
I have always felt the same.
There are other intellectual directions I do favor. I do not favor
close intellectual reading, I favor close feeling/intuiting of a poem.
And, I think, even when intellectually reading a poem one has
the feeling/intuiting going on underneath this conscious action
but one is always conscious of the intellectual rather than that
>To stick my neck way out here - if writing is more than a mechanical
>exercise or pragmatic communication it must be making something not yet
>said become said. Doesn't that mean that it comes from a part of you that
>is (as yet) eluding speech/words. Although by 'description and terminlogy'
>you probably mean an analysis of what the 'pre-intellectual level' consists
>At 01:28 AM 2/20/2005, you wrote:
>>I find the pre-intellectual level, which seems to elude
>>description and terminology, very important to me.
>>A place where I am not conscious.
>>Jazz and painting are very important to my writing,
>>in fact, more important that writing over the years.
>>> Hi again Ann,
>>>I'm still not persuaded of the elegance of the theory...and yes, perhaps
>>>the word 'intelligence' is part of what puts me off. I'd be happier to talk
>>>in terms of skills.
>>>I don't paint - but did learn to drawn better some years ago when living in
>>>Japan and found that afterwards I seemed to learn the language more
>>>I sometimes find that music can help me when I've struck a problem with a
>>>poem. But not specifically on a formal level. How about you try it and see?
>>>I'm sure you'll find more than me as an audience here for whatever you are
>>>learning that excites you on your course!
>>>Yes - a dynamic process. I'm seeing the intelligences as accumulations,
>>>one growing from another, more interdependent than independent. Perhaps
>>>if this is what's happening, that many intelligences are working in
>>>combination, then would that strengthen the theory for you? Maybe just
>>>the term "intelligence" is offputting.
>>>Thanks, I'm enjoying the course and learning a great deal. I'll happily
>>>blurt out more if you'd like to send me an email. Otherwise, I'd
>>>probably bore the pants off everybody.
>>>About your painting: How does this affect your writing - do you
>>>experiment with form or do you become less rigid or do you see parallels
>>>that weren't apparent before or what? Is there any one common denominator?
>>>Which makes me think again about that Musical intelligence. Music can be
>>>heard internally and externally. Do the two complement one another? If I
>>>listen to Bolero, will it help me write a decent roundeau?