everyone is also entitled to have one of those--

but usually an opinion comes in threes.

 

:)

oops.  he took the title from Horace, not Aristotle -

although Aristotle used it too in describing:
The Art (or Nature) of Poetry.

 

my favorite quote from Horace (well, okay, so what if it's the only one i remember?!):

 

Taught or untaught, we all scribble poetry.
~Horace (65 BCE)

poetry is living, it is literary manifestation of evolution, it uses whatever is available and works, it is never stagnant and never limited to whatever value placed on it at any given time or space. it does and is at simultaneously or one or the other. there is

no room for logic discussion in the matter of poetry but there is reason and rationality and their opposites. as for a poem, the whole discussion of what a poem should do and shouldnt do is futile, some, i guess, the majority disagrees, but it is, for in the

end it is a matter of individual enlightenment, that takes form in poetic theory, and

no amount of criticism or logic debate can change that fact. we cannot change eliot', yeat's or Stevens's poetic theory not to speak of their poetic mind. a poem means and is, where you want to place the emphasiss on this limited space (and very unfair to poetry) is up to you. poetry is not made up of laws, it has no laws and they are certainly not universal, in that respect a poem is universal and so is poetry.

 

kat1

you have something there, i think.

poetry attempts simultaneity

which is not as easy as it would first seem.

To whom did you direct the question, Pipe? 

Katone, the following is floating in my mind.  I agree about no logic discussion, and I am curious about the 'but.'  Reason is not from logic? 

 

 

I love to quote a line by Bert Kosko:  "Black and white are the extreme limits of grey."  And he also says, in 'Fuzzy Thinking,'  and I think I paraphrase, 'A or not A' is the Aristotelian way, while 'A and not A' is the Buddhist more inclusive way.  I like the inclusive way, especially because of my very own inexplicable 'parallels' as far as the mechanism of my brain at work and what little awareness of its process I live with in consciousness.  Often, 'things' are the opposite of what they seem to be.  (All of what I insert here, seemingly irrelevant, to me, is very relevant because I think you are not excluding definition by process of elimination).  Who said this:  paraphrase again, because this is not mine, but cannot remember whose, 'arriving at what it is by ruling out what it is not.'  (Chinese philosophy)? 

 

Do you mean the message by the writer must be clear or explainable,?  'Rationality' being the opposite of insanity as in making no sense? 

 

I definitely agree with your statement, that, in the end,   it is a matter of individual enlightenment

 

But that no criticism has place?  <<< I hope you are referring to critics per se, not to constructive criticism. 

 

Maybe some statements are a matter of semantical differences.  Sam Z likes to say 'feedback' while I beg for 'constructive criticism' and others ask for comments, and so on.  Opinions, call it what you will, but those are important, at least to me.  Even if I do not agree, they help me to see how someone else reads what I write, and, in many instances, I see a good point made, and I am not closed and shut about possible improvement in delivery or even suddenly deciding it goes to the bin....  Not too different from a painting for me, which I do not hesitate to paint over or turn upside down and find I like it better that way.  (Are we now getting into discussion of the making of a poem)?   So we partake in the crafting of this ethereal entity?   

 

Do you mean Poetry is the entity that is 'living?'  Or is it in the living?  The latter would imply it does not make it outside of someone's mind?

 

Do you teach Philosophy?   This is borderline circular.  haha  I love it..   Exactitude is not my forte, and I do not feel compelled to be consistent.  I hardly ever re-read before I post, so I just hope I made enough sense of this one. 

 

Oh, and even about critics, are there not judges deciding who wins prizes in literature?  Caca?  hahaha  Erase them all, all the grand ones we love, along with the 'wee' 'antsy' ones??? 

 

gypsy

this discussion is (how shall i say it?) arriving at the abstruse and um becoming stagnant.

hahahhaa  Susan,  just zap it...  haha

pipe: hahah im einstein of the lost thread

 

i cant remember where i was supposed to go with this, but logic does not equal

rationality and reason at all times, logic can be very irrational and based for the most

part on semantics ( i think), it is flawed like syllogism.

 

kat1

Ok, so you are referring to something like 'a table has legs, therefore a table walks' 

that's a good one, gypsy haha almost as perfect as

I think, therefore I am.

 

hahahaha

Well, I have to say that Kato is correct when he says there may be no logic in logic, it being a peculiar exercise in which a correct assumption/conclusion does not bring forth a logical answer.  There are more of those;  I will have to think about them for your amusement, Susie.  

 

Deviating a little, do you remember a book called, I think, 'Metatalk.'  There was a part where a grandmother tells her grandaughter, "There are two words I do not like you to use, one is swell and the other one is lousy."  The grandaughter answers, "Grandma, tell me which one is swell and which one is lousy." 

 

Oops, interruptions,  gypsy

 

 

i like this.

come up with more, gypsy.

 

i know i know them, but they sound fresh to my ears.

 

s.