Dear Helen,

I will gladly expound upon the point I made:

The move in academia from action to language
> is a prime example of the desire to become less involved --to rescind upon
> that traditional contract between the poet and reader --



Over the years I have seen "displacement" activity in academia. When called
to action they are more likely to discuss power matrices than what is
actually there in front of them. They are divorced from the realities of
what happens right in front of their noses. They use the high octane
theories as a form of barrier --it prevents them from engagement. In the
social sciences, a daughter and father are reduced to two pawns in cultural
or gender theory, their actuality, their voices, and significance lost in
theory. They are not named, they are categorised they are theorised --it is
reification in reverse.  Similarly on a wider scale when these theorists
look at a war --they forget the people --they trade in  terminology. I once
remember a discussion in Paris on the topic, what is a terrorist?

Look at Paul De Mann. He spent years telling us to de-face ourselves --and
in the end, in life he was a Nazi collaborator. That was the "hero" of
postmodern theory -- and Foucault, Barthes, you turn them over and look at
their humanity, and often it is not a pretty sight --not a surprise that
they chose to disguise this -to distance themselves from this -- reality.
Derrida is looking at himself in the mirror --Kristeva has done so --many
theorists have turned to autobiography and theory --because they want to
recover themselves --they miss the dialogue. this is the project of many
feminists --the return of the subject is also the project of Native
Americans, Black Americans and many other ethnic minorities. They write "I"
and mean "I" and expect the reader to know this.  They are reclaiming the
"I" because for so many years it had been denied to them. And it  isn't a
sad irony that when they wish to speak out in their own voices that their
presence their existence is denied through theories that reify abstracts and
dehumanize. And yes I am angry. I have read reams and reams of theory that
has its origins in Hegelian thought --Hegel! In the 21st century we still
have a master/slave relationship with Hegel --isn't that downright kinky!
Read Hegel. I have. Marx too. His book on capitalism is good read --but he
was poor interpreter of Hegel and Hegel was lousy reader of Kant and so on.
True they have their points --all insisted on a contract with the
reader --all wanted that reader to understand their work and in marx's case
act upon it. Several decades later we have the same bilge repackaged and
placed in the context of language --yes praxis is now in language --it is a
language act... I find it all depressing that we have so many inequalities
in our respective societies and problems, but those who are in the position
of doing something, would rather make risks with language than risk doing
something. Now we have an intellectual paper factory-- I attended countless
seminars where students who were fresh from school were exposed to
theory --they drowned in it -- they had no time to read the primary
texts --they had to spend all their precious time scurrying about looking
for theory. And that is the same for Cam-Po --the poem is of secondary
importance -it does not matter if it is absolute crap --as long as it is
propped up by ...theory --a theory that is Eurocentric and will in a few
years be remaindered --because the rest of the world people want poetry,
they insist upon communication --and action. In the 1970's I was a union
representative -- and I was young --and I remember how people were all in
favour of taking action against the Chileans --and I said at the time-- that
they should do something for the Refuseniks --Russian Jewish dissidents --
and I spoke out. They shouted me down. I then took it further. I by myself
went to my MP and got him to raise the matter in the house --which he did.
It was rerported in the Telegraph. Osip Mandelstam wrote poetry that was
esoterical but there was no mistaking the "risk" he took in writing a few
lines about Stalin's moustache. If you wish to change things you must take
that risk. I am willing to do that.






 Chris's post. In your post you mentioned 1) Einstein and  2) Bryan Adams.

"Einstein is readily understood by everybody? We all know how the microwave
works? Everyone here writes their own programmable media?"

 In the first you reasoned that if people can persevere with a difficult
scientific tome by Albert Einstein, why can't they do the same with Lang-Po
and Cam-Po productions? Well, perhaps the reward is different. One leaves
reading a work by Einstein --with a real sense of awe, at his thought and at
the beauty of his theories --and this changes much of how we see ourselves,
our relations with others and with the universe. So as more people could
appreciate his theory --and like Hume did and many scientists and
philosophers, he felt the need to simplify and make his work more coherent
to the layman. He did not merely handover his notes to the publisher and
present them to the public. Einstein, Freud and others constantly kept in
mind the need to communicate, they certainly saw no need to needlessly
complicate. Have you never heard of William of Ockham (?1280-1349) who came
up with the following "Entities must not needlessly be multiplied" --in the
philosophy of science this means that where there are two or more theories
equally fitting all observed facts --the theory requiring the fewer or
simpler assumptions is to be accepted as more nearly valid.

With regard to your second point --another very unfortunate analogy

While one lot of referents will be at ease with Brian Adams there are many
others listening to Squarepusher. These bases for discussion are reductive
and naive

Are referents human beings? Is there a sense of elitism in your comparisons?
I am far from naive Chris. You sign off your letters with "love, love" etc.
Is this intended --are we more than referents on this list? Of course we
are, we are engaging in levels of discussions that would easily comply with
Turing's test for humanity -- you ignore my postings when they seem to be
outside your accepted parameters of what a discourse should be. I always
invite discussion --never close it. You misunderstood my point --I am not
arguing that poetry should be at all times accessible --my point was
regarding specific poetry --poetry by writers who spend a great deal of
their time "righting the wrongs" in the world  --it seems that they are
unwilling to risk communicating this in poetry, they would rather risk
experiments with syntax than broadcast their discontent --they are unwilling
to write satire anymore etc. I will be honest with you, lang-po and Cam-Po
are boring, they are different in its extreme form than a catalogue one
might find in Halfords for car parts --with the vital exception you can
usually do something with those parts. It is a project that is
ludicrous --there you are I even play with play -- lud -- Homo Ludens -- I
read the like in classical poetry , in Ancient Chinese poetry they had been
experimenting with sounds and layout -it is old hat --pattern verse --but
the claim here is that the games are underpinned by sophisticated
philosophical and cultural theories --what a load of bull. That underpinning
is dodgy --any structural engineer will tell you that. A botched job of
theories --mish-mash -- a celebration of nonsense. And theorists go round
like estate agents telling us that the house that Nietzsche built is solid
as a rock. Oh look at the faucets designed by Ludwig Wittgenstein. And you
call me naive? I always had a fondness for Albert Camus rather than
Jean-Paul Sartre --Camus acted and wrote --Sartre called upon Nelson Algren
to sort out people for him...


The risk here is of meaning --people might actually find out the meaning to
your poetry and then see it for what it is --and here we can have an anology
drawn from popular culture --thousands of Japanese are disappointed to
discover after they have learnt English the meaning of the lyrics which they
had loved to sing.





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%