I don't want to 'define' what 'poetry' is, nor do I
think one can make any description of what it is,
without falsifying it. One only perceives it by the
sense of 'life' that one acquires (And Caroll, I know
very well that you don't understand what 'Life' is,
either, by some remarks you made on Leavis once).
I would even say that it is easier to perceive it in
its non-existence as expounded beautifully in the
sanskrit phrase 'neti, neti' of the Upanishads.
Anyway, for starters, this passage from D.H.Lawrence
reflects what I have in my mind:
'When Van Gogh paints sunflowers, he reveals, or
achieves, the vivid relation between himself, as man,
and the sunflower, as sunflower, at that quick moment
of time. . . . The vision on the canvas is a third
thing . . . the offspring of the sunflower itself and
Van Gogh himself. [It] is forever incommensurable with
the canvas, or the paint, or Van Gogh as a human
organism, or the sunflower as a botanical organism. .
. It is a revelation ...'
--- Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Nancy Gish wrote:
> > Dear Vishvesh,
> > You assume you know what the "poem" is and that it
> has nothing to do
> > with its historical context. [clip]
> Vishvesh had written:
> > you were bringing in such
> > facts which more often do divert from than focus
> > the 'poem'.
> Vishvesh, I don't have the foggiest idea what you
> mean by "the 'poem.'"
> Could you forget for a moment what does and does not
> divert from that
> mystic essence and tell us a little about what
> (according to you) "the
> poem" is. And why in the devil did you put _poem_
> in scare quotes?
> We can't talk about the poem with someone who fails
> to say anything
> about it while accusing everyone else of diverting
> us form that mystical
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.