---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:22:49 +1100
>From: Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Matters of taste
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
I was speaking of Eros specifically as an aspect of writing (and by
>extension, of consciousness); and think of it as a dynamic, with various
>possible expressivenesses, rather than as a static personification; a reason
>I prefer muses to the Muse, for example. All these things are fluid and
>cross over and past each other, which makes discriminating between different
>traditions and speculations an exercise of artifice and play (rather like
>writing poetry is, in fact).
Since you do here speak more specifically of what you meant, a dynamic, not a
personification, I am inclined to not argue. I don't think I said anything to the
effect that 'being specific is domestication or repression,' for my argument was
with the personification, not with the issue of 'being specific' much less the
value of language. I would still quibble about "Eros" as "an aspect of writing,"
just as I would with "Eros" as an "aspect of consciousness," since that language
implies a sense of a reality (writing, consciousness) that has 'aspects' of which
Eros is one. Why not say that eros has aspects of consciousness, that as a
dynamic it is fluid and fluent with the various possible expressivenesses of
consciousness, the unconscious (dreams, etc), writing, just as it has the various
possible expressiveness of other arts, dance, gesture, silence, sex? though even
there 'has' doesn't seem to fit, perhaps 'is'. . . ah, well,
best,
Rebecca
|