I will admit there is an amusing parallel here with my poetics... esp
the theological dimensions of set theory or topology which can appear
far more way out then conservative poetics I have had to encounter...
Although it has never been really face to face, there have been at least
two, and more to be accurate, oppositional streams of recent poetics
within Australia, and also on an international arena which have opposed
each other. One being the stream concerned with formal concerns and the
skills, alone, still linking in some way to Kant and Aristotle and names
linked to this such as John Tranter, John Kinsella and oddly Alison
Croggin and Jill Jones; although the last two names sort of get dragged
along into this category and the real people concerned may object. And
it does not mean we are not friends, of course. It takes true friendship
to differ and argue poetics. (Deleuze and Foucault, to differ and make a
difference is a question of friendship.)
It is not what you think as an individual but the relations of social
forces that attempt theological divisions. An opposing relation of
forces would include myself and verse novels by Dot Porter. It gets more
confusing since I argued for Jill Jones being included in this, through
anthology politics, but yet I lost the collectivist editorial argument.
I still think that was a mistake, but whatever.
John Tranter has publicly opposed the poetics I have developed and
follow along with John Kinsella. Opposed to the poetics put forward by
JT and JK, whom I claim have not been able to resolve their theological
grounds and their links with Aristotle, and as such are not yet
Modernist, are such publications as Michael Hurley, A guide to gay and
Lesbian writing in Australia.
( http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21457317?versionId=45950007 )
I can trace this back somewhat to the arguments between language poets
and new narrative (eg, Jack the Modernist.) It seems to me the language
poets have not been able, in the poetic theories they have developed, to
break with Aristotle and even Romanticism and as such are not yet
Modernist. I am curious as to Charles Bernstein's latest book of verse
since it seems to be breaking with language poetics theory, as an aside.*
*Formalist concerns, while being a huge and important part of Modernism,
are not the limits of Modernist poetics and as such formaism is a
forgetting of critique within limited formal concerns. Again this limit
drags back to Aristotle. This is where the discussion on Modernism gets
interesting. Derrida certainly hints at this as this dangerous
supplement to the basic formal linguistics of signifier/signified.
However, Derrida seems to be constantly misread, in that poetics must
not go onto dangerous grounds, beyond formal signification. A similar
error and mistaken misreading of Foucault occurs when Foucault says that
identity based on sexual difference is dangerous and formal academic
educators then say that it is wrong to base a poetics on sexual
difference. The educators proclaim their moral law it appears that the
educators themselves need educating, as Marx had already written.
This could be better written, I fear, but it gets at some as yet
unfinished arguments and discussions between friends. Derrida's
dangerous supplement is beyond formal differences. This is also the
beyond and force/thought of the outside of Foucault and Deleuze. And if
we really want to get abstract... /Laruelle's non/-/philosophy/... where
Deleuze's pure immanence on a transcendental critique is the pure form
of transcendence.... which basically proves Deleuze correct since a
transcendental critique would be Kant's transcendence; so it does not
work in reverse.... so Deleuze has invented a new transcendental which
comes afterwards and not a-priori....
On 31/03/13 09:33, David Bircumshaw wrote:
> Or there's Dante Shepherd (you need to click the link under 'completely
> true' btw):
>
> http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson1284.html
--
BLOGhttp://abdevpoetics.blogspot.com.au/
|
