Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 04:11:58 +0100
Maggie wrote:
> > Magnus said to Platt:
> > Then who decides it *is* a poem in the first place?
>
> I'm not disagreeing with your answer at all, but my logic on this
question
> takes a different tangent.
>
> I think poetry is often seen as an intellectual concept, and to the
extent that
> poetry is "taught" in school, it is; but very little of the "poetry"
written in
> school is poetry. I don't think intellectual patterns can be the
arbiters.
>
> I think rhyme must be a social pattern, because it seems to be a very
powerful
> and basic component of primitive language, which was social. I don't
think
> it's coincidental that rhyme also involves aural pattern matching, a
biological
> ability that may be more direct (non-intellectual? non-social?) than
other
> types of human pattern matching, such as visual.
>
> Rhythm is important in poetry, and rhythm is a very strong biological
pattern,
> one that has a close (can it be connecting?) counterpart in primitive
social
> patterns.
>
> The cumulative effect of involvement of these different forces could be
that
> the "meaning" (the intellectual concept) of the poem is affected by the
> suspension of common intellectual patterns and intellectually-mediated
social
> patterns. Because of the linking to lower-level patterns, pockets of
balance
> are created (as the poem is being created), that allow Dynamic Quality to
have
> an effect, creating new, surprising patterns.
>
> The sensing of the DQ event would be what makes poetry so immensely
satisfying
> to the poet.
>
> The enabling of a DQ event for a listener would cause the listener to
classify
> the poem as a poem, or as "art".
>
> The creation of new static intellectual patterns, or bridges, that
sometimes
> happens in poetry--new unexpected patterns that are valued by the
listener
> and/or society--would therefore be mediation of intellectual patterns by
> Dynamic Quality, and may permit a DQ event to ripple out through the
society.
>
> I wonder whether music and poetry don't owe their unique power to some
close
> link or balance that affects or involves all the levels in the same
reaction,
> ie DQ operating at more than one level (whereas in most interactions, the
> matching, or breaking, or decision event involves one level).None of this
has
> much to do with your conversation of poetry and AI, but I don't think it
> conflicts. It still seems to lead to your closing paragraph.
>
> Platt said:
>
> > So in one sense we end up with Doug's "many truths." Trouble is, that
> > assertion is self-contradictory because it is framed as a single truth.
And
> > around and around we go again. Ultimately, the only thing that stops
> > infinite regress and answers the question, "Who decides?" is one's own
> > innate sense of quality. It stops when an individual human ...
>
> perceiving a resonance within his/her many patterns
>
> > decides, "That's a good truth."
>
Your letter bears repeating because IMHO it's brilliant. You've done what
the Great Author encouraged us to do, "... pay minimal attention to what I
have found and maximal attention to what I have missed. That's where the
excitement is."
Excitement is what I felt as I read your MoQ analysis of poetry. Pirsig
hints at a level above the intellectual in Chapter 13, "... a 'code of Art'
or something like that ..." You have opened the door to that level by
explaining how poetry (and perhaps all art) manages to give us direct, pure
experience of each level's interpenetration and dynamic interplay. Further,
your definition of truth as that which resonates with an individual's value
patterns definitely resonates with me.
Bravo and thanks!
Platt
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:06 CEST