Divertimento #1: The Grammar of Self

The field extending

Reply to I like sushi Thag you berry buch!

Si, ma pourquoi ?

Quoting Amity

Si, ma pourquoi ?

@Statilius
Disappointed mit kein Feedback.
Don't you even want to know what part of speech I am ?
What kind of a divertimento is this anyway, huh ?
:sad:

Reply to Amity Thank you. What part of speech are you?

Quoting Statilius

What part of speech are you?

Guess :joke:
What part of speech are you ?

It represents my rebellious finger to a probably longdead English teacher. And others of that ilk.
But curiously enough decided here, to positively join in the game.
Pourquois pas ?
* Gallic shrug *

Reply to Amity Thank you. There has not been very much response to this idea, so I'll just let it ride on the waves for a while. Best wishes to you, Statilius

Reply to Statilius

It's only been 3 days...

I think it is more of a divertimento if people can try and guess the part of speech. I am looking forward to your poem...

Quoting Statilius

4. I will compile all entries and write a poem based on the input I receive.
5. I will then post the poem back to the site under this discussion heading.

C'mon peeps, it's just a moment's divertimento not a total exposure of your Self or body :scream:
Ah, that's it - you prefer pics of pigs, goats and sheep :brow:
You are all nouns !

Quoting Statilius

There has not been very much response to this idea,

The first rule of a game is 'You go first !'
So let's be havin' ya'.
Then at least you will have a 3-line poem :wink:

Quoting Amity

I think it is more of a divertimento if people can try and guess the part of speech. I am looking forward to your poem...

I agree, and did not see this when I had the idea. Thank you.

Quoting Amity

The first rule of a game is 'You go first !'
So let's be havin' ya'.
Then at least you will have a 3-line poem

Though it's too late to go first, I will now. My original thought was that I should perhaps hold back so as not to bias or influence the various responses. But given the paucity of responses, I will take your advice. Besides, I like your pluck.

"Falling, falling, he gives his consent."

Quoting Statilius

Falling, falling, he gives his consent."

Oooh a tricky one.
I guess that you are 'falling'.
Now is that a gerund or what ?

Quoting Statilius

"Falling, falling, he gives his consent."

Quoting Amity

Now is that a gerund or what ?

I may be wrong, but I think it's an active present participle; at least, that is what I intended. What do you think? Maybe I'm wrong. 'Falling' is an adjective modifying the subject 'he'.

The field extending
The clowns collect
A drifting litter
Hoisting heavenly, hellish hooks
Demanding 'Yes or No?'
Falling, falling, he gives consent.
Si, ma pourquoi ?

Last call for entries; I'll be writing the poem over the next few days. -- Stabilius

How To Write the Word '[s]Know[/s]ledge'

First, stay put long enough to feel
what part of speech you are,
what fine lines appear along the edges
of your eyes: Si, ma pourquoi?

In the field extending lazily along the sea,
just there, beyond the hollow reeds where
thick mist is lifting, eschew
that gray Gallic shrug that shakes

and skews the child's rebellious hands,
rides the wake of ducks and geese, a sacred
incantation skimming the edge
of our measureless and outrageous days,

out of lost skies and dreams, out of the pure
moisture of spring grass, where are you now
my lost don, my executioner, my acrobat
from heaven, my infirm one: where are you now?

Falling, falling, he gives his consent; cliffs
and brambles, he does not grasp,
watches them pass by as in a dream
falling as silent as snow, as silent
as the flight of the great grey.

An occasional wild boar snorts along
the horizon of right angles and light, scrub of pine,
juniper and sage, rooted in dark generations of toil
and torn knees, old gates and disasters,

fish leaping to the mayfly, leaping (we think we [s]know[/s])
to the mayfly. Clowns collect drifting litter hoisted
heavenward, hellish hooks as in tired old stories
demanding 'Yes or No?' The forge, the fire,

the bruised foot, the ringing sound of iron and truth,
like wolves howling at timberline, at daybreak,
where darkness and light divide—last call
for the fall, last call for second-order beliefs,

last call for the stout and unverifiable
building blocks of time. You who can write the word,
bring us the great steed, the ox-headed one, bring
us the one who can (almost) turn him toward the sun.

May 14, 2020 -- Statilius

Bravissimo :cool:

But not sure about the strikeouts and brackets ?

Reply to Amity Precisely.

Intrigando.
Another guessing game...hmmm :chin:

Is it that what we think we know is uncertain and it can only ever be qualified ? The truth needs to be hammered out and we can bruise ourselves in the process...

Or is it that there is an absolute Truth from the word of ( God ? )
Should we be looking heavenwards for the answers; the solution to our struggles...

What tune are you playing?

Reply to Amity Just let it reverberate in you. If there was a single explanation it would not be poetry. If a poet could say it differently, he/she would do so. A poem is a whole world, enter it as you would the ocean. Let it surround you, let it reverberate in you. As with any good art, a poem should plow and harrow the soul. And there is no explanation for that.

Quoting Amity

Si, ma pourquoi ?

Multilingual?

Quoting Statilius

Just let it reverberate in you. If there was a single explanation it would not be poetry. If a poet could say it differently, he/she would do so. A poem is a whole world, enter it as you would the ocean. Let it surround you, let it reverberate in you. As with any good art, a poem should plow and harrow the soul. And there is no explanation for that.

OK. But DIY reverberating isn't really enough. I wanted to hear about your poem in your own words.

Nevertheless, this could be the start of a new discussion thread. 'Philosophical purpose and meaning in poetry' - start a competition for a catchier title... :wink:

To answer your post:
Of course, as in philosophy, there can be many interpretations of words and sentences.
A philosopher or poet could say things differently but chooses not to. It is not just about letting words or self flow.

So, you chose the words for the title deliberately. Why those words and what meaning were you trying to convey ?

Entering an ocean is something one would only do with a certain purpose in mind and likely to be a meaningful experience. The ocean itself attempts no message.

The purpose of writing the poem. I don't think it was simply about compiling something from a group of sentences, was it?
You brought something of your self to create an effect/affect.
There was an intention. What was it ?

Generally, a writer will have created a poem for a reason; together with inspiration and an engagement of sense to convey both to a reader.
A poem is complete in itself but is not a whole world.
It can be a particular puzzle intriguing a reader to bring own unique world experience to bear. Two worlds colliding.

A good poem will not necessarily 'plough and harrow the soul'.
The question arises: 'What is a good poem ?'

'There is no explanation for that'.
What exactly is there no explanation for ?
How a poem affects the individual ?
That, I think, is debatable...

Quoting Sir2u

Si, ma pourquoi ?
— Amity

Multilingual?

I love foreign tongues, even if I can't lick 'em all.

I preferred an Italian 'but' to a French one. Why wouldn't I ?
A French 'why' to an Italian. I mislaid the accent for 'perché', forgetting I could copy and paste from Google Translate :cool:
And 'Si' - was an Italian or Spanish 'Yes', not a Romanian 'And' or a French 'If'.

What about you ?

Reply to Amity Poetry works in emotionally infectious images, irreducible and complete in themselves. These images are not one-sided, nor are they cognitively circumscribable. They rise above the limitations of reason and pure cognition into the sphere of dream and incantation, dreams and incantatory refulgence. As Andrey Tarkovsky says, “It unites within itself dialectically contradictory phenomena.”

I compose very spontaneously; the images flow into the poems like mountain streams, arising from I know not where. There is little deliberation except in the later stages when I am concerned with form and continuity. I do not enter the ocean deliberately; the ocean calls, attracts, pulls: I consent, and am swallowed up.I consent to being swallowed up.

Gogol said, “My job is to speak in living images, not arguments. I must exhibit life full-face, not discuss life.” The poet is not imposing his thoughts on his audience. Poetry does not teach. It has only the capacity, says Tarkovsky again, to “make the human soul more receptive to good”. It opens the soul. The poet is, to an extent, out of her mind. Goethe said “the less accessible a work is to the intellect, the greater it is.” Good poetry is able to generate an infinite number of associations; it is inexhaustible and unlimited in meaning. Even the poet does not know, cannot know, and is blessedly exempt from needing to know or explain, its multitude of meanings, its reverberations, its hints and intimations, its many faces and depths; that is for others to do. Vyacheslav Ivanov said, “Symbols cannot be stated or explained, and, confronted by their secret meaning in its totality, we are powerless.” In everything but the creative act, the poet is weak and powerless. She is a servant to “the whole face of the universe (Spinoza).”

The only thing the poet can hope for is that her audience will respond, enter into the same in-spiration/consciousness that gave rise to the poem, as fruit grows within one, as when we recognize ourselves and stand silent as

the bruised foot, the ringing sound of iron and truth,
like wolves howling at timberline, at daybreak,
where darkness and light divide—last call
for the fall, last call for second-order beliefs,

Thank you, Statilius

Statilius.Thank you.
That is more than I was expecting.
And less than I was hoping for.

This fascinates me. I have read Goethe but not the others you mentioned. Perhaps time to explore further...

Quoting Statilius

Goethe said “the less accessible a work is to the intellect, the greater it is.”

That surprises me. I'd be grateful if you could provide a reference to give context.

So it seems to me that you have avoided answering:
Quoting Amity

you chose the words for the title deliberately. Why those words and what meaning were you trying to convey ?

Quoting Statilius

Even the poet does not know, cannot know, and is blessedly exempt from needing to know or explain, its multitude of meanings, its reverberations, its hints and intimations, its many faces and depths; that is for others to do

Some of this is true. However, it is not the case that you do not know why you choose a certain title over others. Why even the need for a title at all ?
Writers are not exempt, blessedly or otherwise.

Reply to Statilius :up:

Do you frequent any poetry forums?

Reply to I like sushi I do not. Thank you for asking.

Reply to Amity Thank you for your comments; I appreciate them.

The poem's title came to me in the same way the body of the text came to me: it was not premeditated. In some instances, and consistently with some poets, the title may be seen as part of the body of the poem, and thus of equal importance.

On the blessedness of the artist, we differ. And I appreciate the difference.

The Goethe quote was found in Andrey Tarkovsky's "Sculpting in Time (p.47)." You might enjoy this book; it has made a significant impact on my understanding of all the arts, and especially, of course, my own. I agree with Tarkovsky when he says, "I believe that sensitivity to art is given at birth, and depends subsequently on his spiritual growth (p.172)." I see all art/life as a gift--it is not my doing. It is something I can be happy about but not proud of. I owe much to Tarkovsky. Once again, thank you much for your thoughts and questions. --Statilius

Quoting Statilius

The Goethe quote was found in Andrey Tarkovsky's "Sculpting in Time (p.47)." You might enjoy this book;

Thanks for that. Does Tarkovsky reference the source ?

Quoting Statilius

I see all art/life as a gift--it is not my doing. It is something I can be happy about but not proud of

Yes. Life and art can be seen as a gift ( from God ? ).
A way of being and creating.
However, I would argue that it is also a doing.
A process whereby humans can teach others, as well as themselves, to actively think, reflect and produce works of varying quantity and quality.

[ Goethe was quoted by many including Wittgenstein:
“In the Beginning was the Deed” from Faust ]

It is not necessary to be proud of such an achievement.
However, others might be proud of, or satisfied with, their childrens' or students' growth and development.

[ Do you think it wrong to feel pride?
Or am I going too far, and decidely off topic.
If so, then we'll leave it there.
Thanks again for all responses; much appreciated]

Reply to Amity I prefer to think of it as the gift of the good, rather than God, particularly because the term “God” is so heavily baggaged. In this I have been inspired for many years by Plato and others, but especially Stephen David Ross when he says: “I speak of the good in memory of Plato, but where the good provides no measure. I speak of the good beyond measure rather than instrumentality or teleology, good and bad. . . .The gift is given by no one or thing, circulates everywhere, in every place, a giving without a giver, without a receiver, given everywhere. In a sense, it is impossible to speak of the good, impossible to fix its limits (“The Gift of Beauty: The Good as Art”, p.2.” I have no problem when Rumi or Hafiz use the term 'God', or Santideva.

Works of art that intentionally set out to teach or instruct, rarely, if ever, rise to the level of non-utilitarian works of art.

It is very possible to express joy and happiness with and in one's children without instilling pride, in them or in oneself: they are not your children; they are a gift. Why not instill THAT? It is just as easy to say: “This must make you very happy” or “This makes me feel so very happy,” as it is to say “This should make you very proud.” You may have beautiful hair, but it is not your hair: it, too, is a gift. You are not the doer. Rejoice and be glad—only. The rest is ego noise.

As with ([s]my[/s]) poem: I had no idea our conversation would take on the shape it has. Thank you!

Warm regards, Statilius

Quoting Statilius

Works of art that intentionally set out to teach or instruct, rarely, if ever, rise to the level of non-utilitarian works of art.

Perhaps that is the case, depending.
We can talk about what 'non-utilitarian' means * or how a painting, or piece of philosophical non-fiction, can be 'read'.
How we can be taught something in the process. Like you reading Tarkovsky.The intentions of a philosopher, or writer, are not always clear cut, either/or having only one aim.

In any case, I had been thinking more about people of varying ages, capabilities, degrees of talent being encouraged by experienced others to progress their creative abilities. That could be done in any learning environment. In a Greek forum...or by walking along a river. At rest, work or in play.

Quoting Amity

humans can teach others, as well as themselves, to actively think, reflect and produce works of varying quantity and quality.

Basically, it's the nurturing of nature. The good can circulate here. There is a giver and a receiver; always a measure. Otherwise how can you judge any 'level'...

* I was encouraged by your response to explore further.
I found this:

Some of the functions of art are provided in the outline below. The different purposes of art may be grouped according to those that are non-motivated and those that are motivated (Lévi-Strauss).

The functions of art described above are not mutually exclusive, as many of them may overlap

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-masteryart1/chapter/oer-1-2/

Interesting flow of conversation. Requiring active reading, reflection and choice of words. All good, yes ?

Reply to Amity Yes, Good. Thanks much for sending the link. I will follow it up.

I am something like a carrot, yet to be unearthed,
I am something like a table,
I am something like a see-saw too.

I am something like a marble, rolling down a hill,
I am something like a parcel,
I am something like the colour of skies.

I am something like something else.

Quoting Statilius

I prefer to think of it as the gift of the good, rather than God, particularly because the term “God” is so heavily baggaged. In this I have been inspired for many years by Plato and others, but especially Stephen David Ross

Thank you for this, and more.
I need to start practising philosophy's 'Principle of Charity'.
Whenever God is mentioned, my mind turns away. Whenever there is a suggestion of anything being a Gift from God, I too substitute or omit the word.

An email correspondence with an ex-poster linked me to Stephen David Ross and his book:

https://www.sunypress.edu/p-2382-the-gift-of-beauty.aspx

After reading the summary and scanning the 20page excerpt, I bought the kindle version.
Amazon has its faults - however it allows great accessibility to books.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07BWMWDRB/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I don't think it will be an easy read for me.
Perhaps you will hear me cry, "Aidez-moi !"