“The isolation of 'an' experience for narration and meditation is perhaps
what is particularly in mind here (and of course what is often found
there could be described as 'transcendental' - certainly in Wordsworth).
Is meditation an empirical process? Can 'empiricism' be arrived at
empirically? Isn't it a very unempirical idea? (Deleuze?) “Have there
been two lines of 'empiricism', when the term is applied to modes of
poetry: one that finds a world made up of 'objects', into which indeed
the poem as a new object can enter; and one in which it is made up of
atomised experiences, where the poet is not so much curator of things
as an existential commentator on what Andrew Crozier called
the 'discrete'? ('Thrills and Frills: poetry as figures of empirical lyricism')
(And a third which treats 'language' as an empirical given,
(transcendental over-thing among things)?)”
I see what you mean, John, and, yes, there is a seeming paradox
whereby the empirical is somehow transformed into the transcendental
during the meditative phase—at least that possibility is what motivated
Wordsworth to focus on objects in order to enable to “go through them
and beyond”, so to speak, to what he saw as their essence. But
however veracious this may be philosophically or psychotically, it tends
to result in a descriptive form of poetic utterance, because the objects
of the world, according to this view, need to be accurately described
otherwise the reader won’t be able to share Wordsworth’s
transcendental experience of the objects he describes. But I don’t think
one can simply be reading a description of a tree, for example, really
experience what the person who actually saw the tree experienced—
that’s assuming that anyone can experience the transcendental form
looking at a tree. For the reader such transformations are difficult to
apprehend via poetic language which is descriptive. I think
Wordswworth’s intentions were pure, but those who blindly
appropriated his writing style without understanding why he wrote that
way have done a lot of damage.
"This is the secret of empiricism. Empiricism is by no means a reaction
against concepts, nor a simple appeal to lived experience. On the
contrary, it undertakes the most insane creation of concepts ever seen
or heard. Empiricism is a mysticism and a mathematicism of concepts,
but precisely one which treats the concept as object of an encounter, as
a here-and-now, or rather as an Erewhon from which emerge
inexhaustibly ever new, differently distributed 'heres' and 'nows'. Only
an empiricist could say: concepts are indeed things, but things in their
free and wild state, beyond 'anthropological predicates'. I make, remake
and unmake my concepts along a moving horizon, from an always
decentred centre, from an always displaced periphery which repeats and
differenciates (sic) them."
Because this is a philosophical a statement, it may or may not be
accurate. We can’t prove it one way or the other. But I don’t see its
thrust as a guiding principle in Wordsworth’s ideas of
empiricism/transcendentalism. How could it given it was made long
after Wordsworth died?
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:14:44 +0100, John Hall
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Dear List and Jeffrey
>
>Yes, I can see that my pairing of that indeed provocative quotation
from
>Deleuze with a snippet from your (Jeffrey's) email could itself look like
>smart-ass provocation. And for that I apologise. It was as much a
>self-provocation as anything. I go through an experience of a leaking
away
>of any meaning from certain reassuring paired terms (in this case
>'empirical' and 'transcendental'), the more they are used as though
they
>were self-evident. I take it that in this context 'empirical' is being used
>to bring together two not necessarily identical ideas: knowledge
through
>experience and verifiable knowledge through the sensorium. On this
>assumption I am plunged into eddies of contradiction - or do I mean
paradox?
>For example, in these terms 'experience' is not itself easily amenable
to
>empirical narration let alone verification. The isolation of 'an'
experience
>for narration and meditation is perhaps what is particularly in mind
here
>(and of course what is often found there could be described as
>'transcendental' - certainly in Wordsworth). Is meditation an empirical
>process? Can 'empiricism' be arrived at empirically? Isn't it a very
>unempirical idea? (Deleuze?)
>
>Have there been two lines of 'empiricism', when the term is applied to
modes
>of poetry: one that finds a world made up of 'objects', into which
indeed
>the poem as a new object can enter; and one in which it is made up of
>atomised experiences, where the poet is not so much curator of things
as an
>existential commentator on what Andrew Crozier called the 'discrete'?
>('Thrills and Frills: poetry as figures of empirical lyricism') (And a third
>which treats 'language' as an empirical given, (transcendental over-
thing
>among things)?)
>
>Here is slightly more of that excerpt from Deleuze's 'Preface to the
English
>Edition' of Difference &Repetition. He is waving aside, I think, a
supposed
>dichotomy between concept and thing.
>
>"This is the secret of empiricism. Empiricism is by no means a reaction
>against concepts, nor a simple appeal to lived experience. On the
contrary,
>it undertakes the most insane creation of concepts ever seen or heard.
>Empiricism is a mysticism and a mathematicism of concepts, but
precisely one
>which treats the concept as object of an encounter, as a here-and-
now, or
>rather as an Erewhon from which emerge inexhaustibly ever new,
differently
>distributed 'heres' and 'nows'. Only an empiricist could say: concepts
are
>indeed things, but things in their free and wild state, beyond
>'anthropological predicates'. I make, remake and unmake my concepts
along a
>moving horizon, from an always decentred centre, from an always
displaced
>periphery which repeats and differenciates (sic) them."
>
>All best
>
>John
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: British & Irish poets [mailto:BRITISH-IRISH-
[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf Of Jeffrey Side
>Sent: 27 August 2009 23:26
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: "Has British Poetry had any significance since
Wordsworth?"
>
>
>Pierre, you may be right. I felt the Deleuze quote was an attempt to
>provoke me as it was just "thrown" at me with no comment given. I
still
>think that it does not reflect Wordsworth's ideas about the matter.
>
>
>
>
>
|
