That's some good eatin', Dan. I've been thinking about what IT is lately. Is it poetry? Seems well-enough to call it such. Poetry can't afford to exclude things these days, I suppose. If poetry is dead, it could be something else. It's writing and, at least, an expression and that's enough. Easily it's one thing that more important to me: it's PLAY...
Initial carvingly yours, -- Bob Marcacci > From: Dan Waber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "WRYTING-L : Writing and Theory across Disciplines" > <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:46:51 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: G > > Alex, > > I don't know that I'm the best person on this list to respond to this, > but I do think it asks for a response, and I'm not sure anyone else > will, so I'll take a whack at it. > > I see a lot of spirit in a lot of what I see, here. So, you and I must > have different notions of perceptible spirit. > > There's a known problem in the search for extraterrestrial life that > basically boils down to: we are limited in our search by the limits of > our imagination of what constitutes life--and our imagination is in no > small part limited itself by the limits of what we can perceive. > > We wouldn't know a 9th dimensional crystalline nano-second-long > civilization if it whacked us on the nose. Because we're looking, for > the most part, for carbon based life forms that are visible within our > pretty narrow range of perceptible reality. Heck, even the bugs in > science fiction movies are humanoid. > > A lot of what happens here, on this list, are attempts to broaden the > imaginable. And humans are stubborn, so sometimes it's useful to apply > the spirit of the 12 pound maul instead of the spirit of the ball peen > hammer. I feel it's important work because, as Oliver Wendell Holmes > said, "Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its > original dimensions." The spirit present here is the spirit of > expansion. Expanding what poetry is, rather than limiting it to slight > variation on what has been. > > The fact that much of it could have been made by something other than > a man, and yet the reader still pleads to belong to some form of human > connection is very much the point of some of it, I imagine. I am > reminded of the Rumi that Barks has translated: > > Love Dogs > > One night a man was crying, > "Allah, Allah!" > His lips grew sweet with the praising, > until a cynic said, > "So! I have heard you > calling out, but have you ever > gotten any response?" > The man had no answer for that. > He quit praying and fell into a confused sleep. > He dreamed he saw Khidr, the guide of souls, > in a thick, green foliage, > "Why did you stop praising?" > "Because I've never heard anything back." > > "This longing you express > is the return message. > > The grief you cry out from > draws you toward union. > > Your pure sadness that wants help > is the secret cup. > > Listen to the moan of a dog for its master. > That whining is the connection. > > There are love dogs no one knows the names of. > Give your life to be one of them." > > Mevlâna Jalâluddîn Rumi > Translated by Coleman Barks > > The reader's attempt to connect *is* the return message. > > And some of what you read here, on this list anyway, is certainly > machine-assisted and occasionally even completely machine generated > (after the setting of some initial state + algorithm). Because there's > a very real, vital, current, and necessary exploration of human > poetics going on through the process of making a serious run at > developing a machine poetics. Almost every form of art but nude > interpretational dance is employing some form of technology, the > differentiations are by degree. And all employed technologies affect, > necessarily, the work produced by their use. > > As for only poets writing poems, I think that it's impossible for a > poem to be written by any entity other than a poet. In the context of > the rest of your comments, it reads more like what you intend to say > is that the only poems that should be written are the poems written by > poets who are writing to suit your sensibilities. I think you will > find very little of that on this list, since a process of challenging > sensibilities is what's being explored, directly and intentionally, by > many who post to this list. > > I don't think the thousand-year-old tree is in any need of > RE-claiming. It's never been abandoned. It's been pruned, had initials > carved into it, been photographed, had seedlings cut from it, been > replanted, houses tree-forts, been gene-spliced, and is currently > bearing never-before-imagined, lush, wild and delicious fruit the > likes of which the world has never known. Some of it tastes awful and > bitter. Some of it is hallucinogenic. Some of it lights chocolate on > fire if you try to dip it. Some of it looks just like a Bartlett pear > but tastes like the number 5, some of it jiggles when you play Mahler, > some of it has a half-life that is too short to register on any > equipment made today, some of it blooms in the mind of those who eat > it only years after its been forgotten, some of it cries itself to > sleep for weeks if you look at it sideways. All of it says "I am > poetry" and forces you to agree or disagree, and in so doing impinges > itself upon any poetics that is open to developing. > > Regards, > Dan > >> There's no spirit in anything I see, here. It's so >> detached, one might say, that its minutia. It could >> have been made by something other than a man, and yet >> the reader still pleads to belong to some form of >> human connection. Seems disagreeable, something I >> gotta ask myself, and I don't have the answer, but >> seems to me only poets should write poems, reclaiming >> that thousand-year-old tree. >> >> AJ >> >> >> >> --- BjørnMagnhildøen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> G >>> >>> >>> T >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> why did Nansen cross Greenland? >>> he wanted to show it was possible >>> >>> why didn't he succeed? >>> because he wanted to show it was possible >>> >>> are the raindrops one thing or several? >>> are all numbers multiples? >>> >>> how will you proceed from now? >>> all the chairs ruin your back >>> >>> >>> P >>> >>> >>> where will you go? >>> i want to be a crow >>> >>> where will the crow go? >>> don't try to imagine >>> >>> what about imagination? >>> another romance >>> >>> what about love? >>> how did the chicken cross the road? >>> t Zk5 >>> Zk5 >>> M >>> M >>> k >>> u >>> >>> x U >>> S >>> >>> what about the road? >>> it continues in each step >>> >>> what steps can there be? >>> did you ask me a question? >>> >>> what will remain? >>> look, the door opened by itself >>> >>> wouldn't you say it was the wind? >>> so where does the wind remain? >>> >>> isn't the weather getting worse all over? >>> everything is getting worse all over >>> >>> lpXhoj >>> w e c >>> an r >>> 7 l >>> and >>> y >>> >>> >>> isn't that depressing? >>> not the least >>> >>> what would you call depressing? >>> imagination >>> >>> have you no pity for the world? >>> just imagine >>> >>> what's reality? >>> where are we now? >>> >>> don't you negate reality with all this? >>> where is reality when you sleep? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> W 1 >>> PG+QV4P >>> PG+QV4P >>> 5aXQtJ7W1 >>> >>> who is sleeping? >>> your unborn brother is sleeping >>> >>> isn't that imagination? >>> isn't that reality? >>> >>> then what is unreal? >>> you were talking about raindrops >>> >>> aren't you stuck here? >>> then why should you ask? >>> >>> T >>> >>> >>> i'm kicking you loose >>> aren't you stuck here? >>> >>> why did the chicken cross the road? >>> because it was stuck >>> >>> did the chicken have imagination? >>> try to imagine >>> >>> what about politics? >>> on which side of the road? >>> >>> what about the road? >>> already answered that >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> X >>> O >>> z d >>> >>> are you stuck here? >>> already answered that >>> >>> do you think i approve of this? >>> try to imagine >>> >>> what's the shortest way from a to b? >>> it's the same place >>> >>> then why did the chicken cross the road? >>> because it was stuck >>> >>> then why do you continue to answer? >>> because of my jovial nature >>> >>> what do you mean by jovial nature? >>> >>> Zv >>> >>> >>> AVxlsMw55 >>> how do you think humans evolved? >>> >>> then how did humans evolve? >>> by their good nature >>> >>> isn't that another excursion? >>> try to imagine >>> >>> what do you mean by nature? >>> excursion >>> >>> >>> kI 3. >>> what do you mean by good? >>> little by little >>> >>> then what is evil? >>> too much by too much >>> >>> and what is jovial? >>> a little chicken >>> >>> don't we eat chickens? >>> out of our good nature >>> >>> how come? >>> how do you think it crossed the road? >>> >>> because it was stuck? >>> we eat what is stucked >>> >>> how come? >>> what else can you eat? >>> >>> does the answer eat the question? >>> on which side are you? >>> >>> what is the road? >>> have you already eaten? >>> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com
