JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC Archives

POETRYETC Archives


POETRYETC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC Home

POETRYETC  February 2007

POETRYETC February 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Constructivist Poetics (was Re: methadone)

From:

Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and poetics <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:44:00 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (134 lines)

Christopher, some very interesting comments, so many thanks.

At first I did think that some sort of bridge was needed between the
metaphysical set up of autocratic as diametrically opposite democratic,
but have instead thought that perhaps what is needed is a disjunctive
synthesis. This is a bit of a groan as I would have to now rethink
disjunctive synthesis, which I haven't yet done.

I agree that it is not a question of pronouns but also feel I need to
think this not as a bridge but again as a disjunction and to think free
indirect style/discourse in this way (which is not a question of
pronouns, of course.)

"My own preference is for the social constructivism of Vygotsky. Here
things go the other way, not from but _towards_ the self, " 

This above I find is very much along the lines I am thinking. The idea
of a subject that comes after, which is why I can't think of fictional
characters as subjects but first as bodies as flesh and blood and nerves
and bio-chemistry etc etc which goes toward a finite subject which in a
sort of continuous line is being constantly interrupted and remade again
as subject. It is not Piaget but more so Silvan Tomkins which I take
this from. So affects as real flesh and blood and hence sensation as
flesh brings me into conflict with Deleuze, for starters. Vygotsky
interests me greatly but I have not had the chance to read more of his
writings, so far. The ethical and political problem then returns to the
autocratic / democratic opposition, as you outline and again I am at
least beginning to think that again this needs to be thought of as some
sort of disjunctive synthesis, maybe? I don't yet know, just a
suspicion, but disjunctive synthesis may need to be thought as
interruption? 

I feel the above response is not adequate but it will do for now, I
guess.



On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 16:01 +0000, Christopher Walker wrote:
> <snip>
> my autocratic (and hence totalitarian) poetics as opposed to your democratic
> poetics [Chris J]
> <snip>
> 
> I'm puzzled by this, so better late than never, I suppose... If by
> 'democratic' you mean a poetics that is socially constructivist, more or
> less, then what is 'autocratic'? Presumably not the obverse: a poetics
> in which there are only transcendent truths. So is it something weaker,
> either a contradictory (all...  v  some...) or subcontrary (some... v
> some...) relationship?
> 
> Anyway, here is something you said earlier:
> 
> <snip>
> Well, as Frederick suggests, it [life?] is a move from the first person
> personal narrative to third person universal immanent critique [Chris J]
> <snip>
> 
> That move from first to third sounds a bit like Piaget, for whom (via the
> transitional phase of egocentric speech, of self address) the inner speech
> of the child becomes the socialised speech of adults. Likewise Fred's
> observation (I rework it just a little) that *feeling* is to *I* as social
> and ethical entailments are to *s/he* and *they*.  All narrative, or so it
> seems to me, is both ontologically subjective on the one hand and
> epistemologically objective on the other, with 'let's pretend' in the
> middle, as a sort of bridge between private and public thought, between
> Hume's *is* and his *ought*. But that is not, I think, a matter of the
> pronouns, or not of the pronouns per se.
> 
> My own preference is for the social constructivism of Vygotsky. Here
> things go the other way, not from but _towards_ the self, and where the
> alterity of egocentric speech is (audibly) a drawing of the social subject
> out of and from the world, a process of individuation up to the point at
> which 'shared apperception is complete and absolute' in the inner speech of
> the older child and of the adult.
> 
> But there is, I think, a dilemma nonetheless. Should we (or do we, in fact)
> see ethics our entry upon the world, as our opportunity to talk about what
> other people do and/or ought to do, a sort of deontic imperium (more or less
> fiercely policed) in which the actors of whom we write or speak are of a
> different order of being rather as in US foreign policy US citizens are of
> one order of being and everyone else is of another? Or do we view ethics as
> our individuation, our resistance to what is pre-ordained, in us as in the
> world? If the latter, then there is indeed an immanent critique through the
> actions which we take and the discourses that we generate in becoming and
> ceasing to be (part) members of the collectives to which we (partly)
> belong(ed); history, in other words, is full of contradictions. If the
> former, then the idea of an immanent critique becomes a bit of a sham,
> because there will always be an area in our discourse as in our social
> behaviour that remains beyond critique rather as US foreign policy involves
> some sort of myth of full achievement about conditions back home.
> 
> And so, having said all that, I come back to pronouns again:
> 
> <snip>
> One of the big problems with moving from a first person lyric/narrative
> to third person narrative is the I that in the third person does not say
> I but is implied, especially when this involves dabbling in abject subject
> matter.  [Chris J]
> <snip>
> 
> Again the issue seems to me one of bridging, and of Wittgenstein's
> 'refinement' of language relative to the deed, rather than one of pronouns
> or of pronouns per se. So, in general, I don't see much distinction (other
> than in degrees of relative animicity) between an implied *I* and one that
> is fully explicit. Denature the language into a sort of articulate
> neutrality, on the other hand, and the implicit *I* (if it's there; it isn't
> always) is revealed standing at the boundary of the discourse as a sort of
> sovereign, both making the Law and standing above the Law. Which is
> interesting; the parallel is with God.
> 
> As to abjection, one gets a hint of how 'the abject has only one quality of
> the object and that is being opposed to I' in, say, the semantic differences
> between 'I was unpopular', 'they wanted to see the back of me' and 'he
> wanted to see my back'. However, reductions in relative animicity of this
> sort are generally available whatever the narrative mode. And of course the
> linguistic transformation of animate human subjectivity into animals such as
> pigs, dogs and so forth, vectors of pollution or 'pieces' are all practical
> stages along a road that leads ultimately to extermination.
> 
> One finds what is essentially the same syntactically ergative formulation at
> the beginning of *The Trial*, in which the exteriority of Josef K relative
> to what is happening to him (the same individuated exteriority as that of
> the 'man from the country' relative to the Law in the parable of the
> doorkeeper later on) is first announced:  'Someone must have slandered Josef
> K' ('Jemand mußte Josef K. verleumdet haben'). But again it isn't the
> pronouns that are made to bear the load.
> 
> CW
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 'What's the point of having a language that everybody knows?'
> (Gypsy inhabitant of Barbaraville)
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager