Replacing Men with Androids

[Carl G]

Poetry is what people write when they don't want to know what they are thinking.

I'm wondering what makes you say this? How exactly does writing poems help one to deny what one's thinking?

Like music, it's a form of distraction and deflection. It deflects thought into something harmless, and before it becomes actual thought.

I can't believe this. By definition music and poetry are this and do this? All music and all poetry?

Poetry is a funneling of henids into a bucket before they rise into the light of consciousness, and before they grow sharp edges.

That's just silly.

[David Quinn]

"Semi-interesting, although it tells me nothing I didn't already know. Her anger at the situation is the most palpable thing. But as with all poets, her anger seems misdirected. It looks like more a cry for attention than a resolution to do something constructive about it. In other words, underneath the defiant complaint is a woman affirming the virtues of being passive, and from that perspective she seems little different to the married people she satirizes."

You are not the arbiter, you are just some dope riding his bicycle around some province of Australia. You really do not count.

True.

Her poem has had infinitely more influence than you will ever have on women's attitudes, and what they have done with the meaning of the poem is again far outside of your range.

I'm sure it could be used to throw light on all sorts of different areas - e.g. how people too easily waste away into artificiality. Shallow poems usually do have a lot of ambiguity and multiple-meanings in them.

I suppose that for you art must be a manifesto, it must have an evangelical commitment, and like some pudgy Church Father from a pulpit you imperiously decide its virtue or lack of it, but you only make a fool of yourself in the process, and indicate how utterly diconnected you are from the human world.

Her poem could easily be construed as an evangelical, feminist manifesto, and it seems that many people took it that way.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Like music, it's a form of distraction and deflection. It deflects thought into something harmless, and before it becomes actual thought.

I can't believe this. By definition music and poetry are this and do this? All music and all poetry?

Poetry can become meaningful when it is combined with other forms of teaching, such as is found in Zen Buddhism, or in the writings of Nietzsche.

Music, less so.

It's possible to open up any cookbook at a random page and interpret the recipe in some profound way. That's what happens with the interpretation of poetry and music, and this happens because of a lack of substance in the material.

[kissaki]

kissaki:
Did you just say that you are suspicious of defense-in-general, without supplying any reason whatsoever? I think you did.

Doubt is fundamental. Doubt causes thinking which causes judgment.

Your vague hand-waving has not convinced me that there's anything wrong with formatted writing. Be more specific.

I am not here to convince you of anything. The poetry topic is a horse and pony show. You trot out your pony and I trot out mine. Kevin's horse wins though. Zen and Nietzsche are exemplary horses.

[xerox]

...

[Kevin Solway]

Where do you reckon music comes from kevin?

The emotions.

[brokenhead]

It's possible to open up any cookbook at a random page and interpret the recipe in some profound way. That's what happens with the interpretation of poetry and music, and this happens because of a lack of substance in the material.

Interpret a recipe in a profound way? What the hell are you talking about?

Does this mean that it is not possible to pick up some material with substance and interpret it in a profound way?

So you don't "get" poetry. And you don't "get" music.

But, shit - anybody can follow a recipe.

[Kevin Solway]

The point is that anything can be interpeted anyhow you like. Even completely meaningless things can be imputed with great significance. This is what is happening when people think that music, poetry, or art, is great.

[Carl G]

But what you said, Kevin, or implied, was that there is and can be no great art or poetry. Art and poetry are intrinsically and by definition fucked.

Oh right, that's your interpretation.

[Pye]

xerox asks: Where do you reckon music comes from kevin?
Kevin replies: The emotions.

Well now, here's another one of those places where the parting-out of sentiency can make us simple-minded.

The relationship of music and reason resides in all patterning - something that Pythagoras and his followers were astonished-enough about to keep as a state secret from the rest of the untermensch. After all, the "music of the spheres" was also meant to express the underlying order of cause and effect, as it resides in mathematical relationships. Music shares enormous ground with all the other satisfactions of reason in this patterning alone. Just as math-patterns shall satisfy the sense-making capacity in the reasoning mind by re-presenting the world by pattern - just as logico-linguistic patterns re-present a similar grasp - then, music satisfies a certain patterning, a certain something-made-comprehensible by virtue of the arrangements of rhythmic sound. Emotions alone do not drive music-making. Rather, music-making is driven by the same need of order and comprehensibility as words and numbers provide. It is a sense-making thing.

Music "comes from" the emotions only inasmuch as it satisfies us there with pattern and order expressed about our least-expressible experiences. But music is very much the high-end work of sentiency - a work," meaning a full-on product of bodymind. This is why it has the capacity to completely speak for certain orderings of experience, where words-only or numbers would completely fail. Better yet, it speaks not as substitute, but as addendum - to a particular kind of sense in a particular kind of language that addresses a particular kind of sense-making experience clearly present in the human being. Further, music's been thought by many to connect to the nature of the universe itself in some very large way.

Here is what I have found about music (and I get to say this from long, long discernment in making and listening) - what I have found out about music is that there is a definitive shape and size to the human experiences it can articulate. You can go out far enough to recognize the same set of inner chords being played. In other words, music at this point in every of its forms is not saying anything new; not managing to reveal anything else about existence, but this same particular loop of feeling-cognition. I've played my way through it and I've heard my way through it. It covers the same ground. You can get more from silence :)

[Kevin Solway]

But what you said, Kevin, or implied, was that there is and can be no great art or poetry. Art and poetry are intrinsically and by definition fucked.

It's just that art and poetry, in themselves, are not good vehicles for greatness. For example, if a person is truly great, they would do well if they didn't try to express their greatness by, say, baking cookies. That's about the level of art and poetry. It's the sort of thing you expect to see in the pavilion at a country show, along with flower arrangements and fashion shows.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . music satisfies a certain patterning, a certain something-made-comprehensible by virtue of the arrangements of rhythmic sound.

Music is a representation of our emotions, and seeks to make order out of, and especially to resolve, our emotions.

Emotions alone do not drive music-making. Rather, music-making is driven by the same need of order and comprehensibility as words and numbers provide. It is a sense-making thing.

It seeks to make sense of our emotions, though in an emotional way, which is to say, without the use of thought.

"Blues", for example, seeks to assuage our blues, by massaging them.

Further, music's been thought by many to connect to the nature of the universe itself in some very large way.

Every drug, or sex addict, says the very same thing about their drug of choice.

I suppose it might be true, if you were an extremely long way away from the universe to begin with.

What I have found out about music is that there is a definitive shape and size to the human experiences it can articulate.

Happiness and sadness. The whole gamut of emotions from A to B.

[Pye]

Kevin: It [music] seeks to make sense of our emotions, though in an emotional way, which is to say, without the use of thought.

You think of the consumers of it, while I think of its creators.

You also have a narrower view than myself of what thought is. Is a thought, for you, something that is linguistically expressible in every case?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

kissaki,

Doubt is fundamental. Doubt causes thinking which causes judgment.

Doubt is also specific. It requires more than simply denial. Anyone can shake their head and shout false.

I am not here to convince you of anything. The poetry topic is a horse and pony show. You trot out your pony and I trot out mine. Kevin's horse wins though. Zen and Nietzsche are exemplary horses.

Here you were specific, but your example disproved the rule. It is not poetry, but poets, who wreck the medium.

If you are incapable of criticizing the thoughts expressed in a poem, though, that is a weakness in your own thought -- poetry does not have to be showcasing of talent. The earliest poems were mnemonics to remember ideas before writing; even the earliest written philosophy was written in poetry (Buddhist sutras, Thales' no longer extant works On the Solstice and On the Equinox).

Even though many poets say that poetry is for expressing emotions, emotional expression is not an essential feature of poetry. Any thought that can be written in prose can be put to verse.

[kissaki]

kissaki,

Doubt is fundamental. Doubt causes thinking which causes judgment.

Doubt is also specific. It requires more than simply denial. Anyone can shake their head and shout false.

My doubt is highly specific -- doubt of defense of things. You clearly defend poetry and thus I doubt the action of poetry. Denial applies to concrete ideas such as, "I am going to die but I will pretend that I won't." Denying poetry? How "arteeeeest" of you.

I am not here to convince you of anything. The poetry topic is a horse and pony show. You trot out your pony and I trot out mine. Kevin's horse wins though. Zen and Nietzsche are exemplary horses.

Here you were specific, but your example disproved the rule. It is not poetry, but poets, who wreck the medium.

Therefore spirit is primary and what it animates secondary, yet you remain fascinated with the medium. Better to discuss what Nietzsche points to than how he points to it.

If you are incapable of criticizing the thoughts expressed in a poem, though, that is a weakness in your own thought -- poetry does not have to be showcasing of talent.

So poetry criticism is intricately linked with "strong thought" ? Hello academia!

The earliest poems were mnemonics to remember ideas before writing; even the earliest written philosophy was written in poetry (Buddhist sutras, Thales' no longer extant works On the Solstice and On the Equinox).

So how much longer must I keep my head down and defer before poetry, this great historical artifice? There are countless mediums to express thought now, but we must preserve the "old forms" as they are important, because, well, they're old of course! Attachment to "ancientness" and culture is very real.

Even though many poets say that poetry is for expressing emotions, emotional expression is not an essential feature of poetry. Any thought that can be written in prose can be put to verse.

Precisely, it can express great truths or emotional barf, thus making poetry like anything else. No more no less.

[brokenhead]

Happiness and sadness. The whole gamut of emotions from A to B.

Very funny. More telling than humorous, however. Once again, you are the life of the party.

You think that because what you say goes against the grain, it must be the truth. Kevin, admit that you have seen some movies in your time. That you have actually gone to the cinema, overpaid for some popcorn, and enjoyed a film.

Now keep everything in that film except for the musical score. Take it right out. Are you saying this would be an equally enjoyable film without the music?

[brokenhead]

It [music] seeks to make sense of our emotions, though in an emotional way, which is to say, without the use of thought.

Surely you are not saying no thought goes into the composition of music? Obviously, some pieces of music seem to be entirely banal, while others are quite wonderful. The effect is often emotional in its appeal, but not exclusively. George and Ira Gershwin come to mind; when a skilled lyricist and an equally skilled composer team up, the result isn't just sentimental pap or schmaltz. Music can impart a new thought or a new feeling, and sometimes it can deliver a familiar thought and familiar feeling in an entirely fresh combination.

If emotions are somehow "bad" and must be kept in check, then they cannot be the essence of music, which can range from abhorrent to sublime.

Also, Kevin, in your remarks about poetry and music, you seem to be missing a fundamental point. Rhyme scheme, meter, chord progressions, musical forms - these restrictions on the expression of thought into a structure actually serve as the impetus for creativity itself. The are the woof upon which the feeling or thought is woven. They are in themselves nothing, mere devices, but are necessary as a simple grain of sand is to the formation of a pearl. They are dream catchers.

[Kevin Solway]

Any thought that can be written in prose can be put to verse.

That's true, but one would only put it into verse if doing so made it appear to have more substance than it really did.

People who really have something significant to say, say it in prose, with perhaps the odd poem slipped-in (eg, Zen and Nietzsche). In such a case poetry is used to supplement the prose.

Poetry on its own is like salt and pepper without the actual food.

[Carl G]

Actually, those who disparage Kevin for his low opinion of poetry, music, and art need not do so. It remains only to see how the strictly logical mind manifests, which sees no use for anything connected to feelings and emotions. No essential use, anyway.

Interesting that G.I. Gurdjieff, whom I realize few here know and fewer respect, believed in such as thing as objective art -- including music -- something which could impart objective knowledge. Of course this need not be entirely intellectual for him; he had no dislike of emotion per se; indeed the triggering of high emotion -- such as love of work for self-development -- would have been a legitimate benefit to be gleaned from such music.

Of course, we know that Kevin digs certain sounds, as his you tube link contributions and various comments over the years attests.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin: It [music] seeks to make sense of our emotions, though in an emotional way, which is to say, without the use of thought.

You think of the consumers of it, while I think of its creators.

I'm thinking of the creators as well.

There's not too many composers of music who try to express intellectual ideas in their music. And if they do, the idea is a very crude one (eg, "Things repeat with variations"). Imagine trying to convey an understanding of evolution by natural selection, or a scientific paper on chemistry, through music alone. It wouldn't be too easy.

You also have a narrower view than myself of what thought is. Is a thought, for you, something that is linguistically expressible in every case?

Yes. A thought might not be easy to express in language, but it's not impossible.

By contrast, emotions normally aren't well-formed enough, or understood sufficiently, to be expressed in words. As soon as they are understood, they evaporate.

[Carl G]

There's not too many composers of music who try to express intellectual ideas in their music. And if they do, the idea is a very crude one (eg, "Things repeat with variations"). Imagine trying to convey an understanding of evolution by natural selection, or a scientific paper on chemistry, through music alone. It wouldn't be too easy.

Haha. Why would anyone want to? Are you saying these are the highest types of information anyone could impart, and because music wouldn't be the best mode of communication for these, this is what makes music a second or third class medium?

[Kevin Solway]

Of course, we know that Kevin digs certain sounds, as his you tube link contributions and various comments over the years attests.

I have actually composed a little bit of music:

Kalahari Bushman and Thought

There's not much thought in them though. I just strung sounds together that sounded good to me. The second one must have been a henid of what thought is.

[David Quinn]

It has always struck me that when sharply-intelligent people used music, poetry or art to express their ideas they suddenly seem to resemble drag queens. Their masculine intellect, instead of being hard-core and direct, chooses instead to frolic about in frilly dresses and pretty clothing.

Frank Zappa is an example that comes to mind. His sharp, satirical bent seemed to clash violently with the more feminine act of stringing pleasing noises together.

-

[Iolaus]

Interesting that G.I. Gurdjieff, whom I realize few here know and fewer respect,

I ran into Gurdjieff by accident when I was 16, in a library. I persisted with the book, yet I suspect it was mostly over my head, but I think that seeds get planted. I should probably reread it.

[Jason]

There's not too many composers of music who try to express intellectual ideas in their music. And if they do, the idea is a very crude one (eg, "Things repeat with variations"). Imagine trying to convey an understanding of evolution by natural selection, or a scientific paper on chemistry, through music alone. It wouldn't be too easy.

"Ode to Spot"

Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature,
an endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature.
Your visual, olfactory and auditory senses,
contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations,
a singular development of cat communications,
that obviates your basic hedonistic predilection
for a rhythmic stroking of your fur, to demonstrate affection.

A tail is quite essential for your acrobatic talents;
you would not be so agile if you lacked its counterbalance.
And when not being utilized to aid in locomotion,
it often serves to illustrate the state of your emotion.

O Spot, the complex levels of behaviour you display,
connote a fairly well-developed cognitive array.
And though you are not sentient, Spot, and do not comprehend,
I nonetheless consider you a true and valued friend.

- Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation