A companion to S.J.'s thread "Tangia praxis"

[Senna Jawa]

I invite you to kindly write in this thread. In particular, you may propose to me to consider (in this thread) interesting poems which I may select to analyze in the Tangia praxis thread (which I am about to open).

This thread is liberal (relatively). Posts to the Tangia praxis proper are meant for comments strictly along the logical lines of the presented there arguments. Thus not strictly poetic comments should be posted only in the companion thread. And even the (more or less) poetic comments but not directly related to the presented issues should also be posted to the companion thread--I may eventually grab certain elements from the companion and address them in the praxis proper (more likely though in the companion).

I'll write more in the next post (hm..., any my post may be the last one--no regrets).

 

[Senna Jawa]

The proposed poems may be by Literotians or by any other author (let them be easily available). I may select some poems by myself.

 

[Senna Jawa]

A happy idea

I plan to copy some poems to Tangia praxis, without hurrying to comment on them. If you feel like it, you may comment right away on them in the companion thread. But it may be good to have some time to look at the posted poems without me writing about them immediately. (Once I start the discussion in the Praxis you're welcome to join it in the direct way straight on in the Praxis too).

 

[pelegrino]

Let me start with the following poem by LeeAnn Heringer (she is, first of all, an Internet poet--that's how I feel).

when I was old enough
to put myself to bed


I would pick my way
through shards of broken dishes
that lined the floor and lie down
between my parents,
hoping the alcohol
singing in their blood
would seep beneath my skin
and I would sleep
rocked by the temporary truce
of their steady snores


​

by LeeAnn Heringer

******************************************

(At this time, please post your comments to the neighboring Companion thread).

I am not sure if I'm posting in the right thread or at the right time, Senna, (good to see you back!) but I think this is the thread. It will be more clear, I hope, as it goes along.

Here is my comment:

I like the poem because it describes a very squalid state of affairs with strong realism. Finding the right words to do it takes a lot of skill and imagination and, I suspect, a lot of courage on the part of the narrator.
I don’t know what a "internet" poet is. Is there such a thing? I mean, I use pen and paper to write and then I use the internet to publish what I write. Does that make me an "internet" writer?


Ps: In the light of the second poem you published by the same author my above comment has only relative value and it will be reviewed if need be, though I think that this second poem is a continuation of the first and an expansion of it along similar lines.

 

[pelegrino]

Philosophy isn't knowledge, it's speculation.

the French intellectual
philosophized upon
the rareified nature of being

and the insubstantial nature of matter
deconstructing the world to a point
he had all but contrived
his disappearance
up his own semi-colon

the American physicist
pointed out
even French intellectuals
should they jump off a very tall building
would be subject to G
R
A
A
A
A
VITY!!

and as the french intellectual
passed the sixth floor window
accelerating at a rate of :-
g=9.81 (metres/sec)/sec

he would have time enough
for his life to pass before his eyes
and to reflect upon the nature of being
and how hard the ground can be
when approaching it at 30 miles per hou.....A
A
A
A
A
R
G
H
SPLAT!!!!!

I like this poem. Someone may say that I like it because I felt it supporting me in an argument with someone else. Well, I did feel it supporting me. Is that not one of poetry's uses, to feel it as supportive to one's brain or soul?
But I like it mainly because of its line of argumentation. I know this line of argumentation many years before Bogus wrote the poem. I met it firstly in the writings of materialist Hungarian-French philosopher Georges Politzer, specifically in his
"Principes Élémentaires de Philosophie"(published posthumously after his execution by the Nazis in 1942), where he is arguing against the idealist theories of bishop Berkley on the non-existence of the material world. There he gives a very good example of how to refute Berkeley. He uses something very similar to Bogus' poem: A motor bike or car (I don’t remember exactly) approaching with great speed the bishop who is standing in the middle of the road. Now, if material world does not exist, the bishop does not have to move and go to the pavement for safety, but if it does exist, the result of the vehicle approaching will soon be felt by the bishop.
I don’t know if Bogus is familiar with the philosophy of Politzer, but to take or imagine a philosophical argument and turn it into a brilliant and vivid poem such as this is not small feat.
Beautiful stuff, Bogus!

 

[Senna Jawa]

I am not sure if I'm posting in the right thread or at the right time, Senna, (good to see you back!) but I think this is the thread. It will be more clear, I hope, as it goes along.

Thank you for honoring my request. This is the good time and the proper thread, Companion. In the Praxis thread, after selecting a poem, I'd like to give its discussion some direction. Then we would have our conversation at Praxis focused.

(Once Praxis thread gets cleaned, I will continue it; at this time I am continuing just Companion--conditionally).

This here Companion thread is more relaxed. For Praxis I will consider only strong poems (strong in the sense of Tangia). In here, at Companion, even myself, Imay provide also weaker poems and may discuss them here. It's more important to zero on strong poems, but showing weaknesses explicitly also has some value.

I like the poem because it describes a very squalid state of affairs with strong realism. Finding the right words to do it takes a lot of skill and imagination and, I suspect, a lot of courage on the part of the narrator.

This is a good description. I intend to talk in more objective terms. However your subjective formulations in this case can get easily translated into objective observations.

I don’t know what a "internet" poet is. Is there such a thing? I mean, I use pen and paper to write and then I use the internet to publish what I write. Does that make me an "internet" writer?

I'd like to write about this topic too. Perhaps in the litlog 2014++. I am afraid that I will overextend myself though. Well... I am tempted.

Thank you for welcoming me back, best regards,

 

[Senna Jawa]

I like this poem [titled: "Philosophy isn't knowledge, it's speculation."]. Someone may say that I like it because I felt it supporting me in an argument with someone else. Well, I did feel it supporting me.

Great! (Good for you!).

Is that not one of poetry's uses, to feel it as supportive to one's brain or soul?

You must recognize that this is not an artistic argument.

I am sure that this is an entertaining text (not to me). The topic is paperish, and it's rendition is not too poetic either. The whole is quite banal to me. It's not attractive to me poetically. The sense of humor is just from here to there. Only good natured humor (humane) has a chance to belong to true poetry--poetry doesn't care for sarcasm, etc. That's my Tangia view.

Gauss said:

When a philosopher says something that is true then it is trivial.
When he says something that is not trivial then it is false.
​

Regards,

 

[pelegrino]

You must recognize that this is not an artistic argument.

I do recognize that. This is my reader's point of view though.

I am sure that this is an entertaining text (not to me). The topic is paperish, and it's rendition is not too poetic either. The whole is quite banal to me. It's not attractive to me poetically. The sense of humor is just from here to there. (This issue of humor in poetry goes to my definition of senryu as opposed to haiku, in about 1995, check rec.arts.poems, and I had these toughts even years earlier). Only good natured humor (humane) has a chance to belong to true poetry--poetry doesn't care for sarcasm, etc. That's my Tangia view.

What is of value and importance to me here is the point made, not so much the artistry with which it's been made (which I consider vivid and brilliant anyway).
Ridiculing absurd beliefs which hold humanity back is a valuable exercise in polemics. In philosophy (as in Politzer's in my example) those exercises may not be so accessible and some times hard to grasp. In poetry like in this example they are far more immediate and accessible for any readership.
The big thing here for me is not whether Bogus wrote a great poem or not (on that point we may disagree without big damage to the truth), but whether the "non existence" of the material world has been ridiculed yet again.

And I think it has, very successfully indeed.

 

[twelveoone]

One I assume you have permission for this:

when I was old enough
to put myself to bed


I would pick my way
through shards of broken dishes
that lined the floor and lie down
between my parents,
hoping the alcohol
singing in their blood
would seep beneath my skin
and I would sleep
rocked by the temporary truce
of their steady snores

two things of interest:
shards not used as poetic cliche, probably a bad choice anyway
and the passage of:

hoping the alcohol
singing in their blood
would seep beneath my skin
and I would sleep

is the only thing indicative of anything further, in an otherwise denotative work, it does not make any demands on the reader and plays the sympathy card very well.

singing in their blood is handled well, as it tends to the cliche but plays against sleep, as in sung to sleep and rocked

has some nice alliteration but looks and feels rather standard

 

[twelveoone]

Great! (Good for you!).



You must recognize that this is not an artistic argument.

I am sure that this is an entertaining text (not to me). The topic is paperish, and it's rendition is not too poetic either. The whole is quite banal to me. It's not attractive to me poetically. The sense of humor is just from here to there. Only good natured humor (humane) has a chance to belong to true poetry--poetry doesn't care for sarcasm, etc. That's my Tangia view.

Gauss said:

When a philosopher says something that is true then it is trivial.
When he says something that is not trivial then it is false.
​

Regards,

Sarcasm does care much for true poetry, Bob Southey