This is a particularly interesting perspective since a stone is a stone,
and in the words of Hugh MacDiarmid, "We must reconcile ourselves to the
stones, / Not the stones to us.
Just as the poem cannot be reduced to intention or simple mimesis, it
cannot be reduced to craft. The stone is impenetrable, only knowable
in many facets but not simply the ones we see individually and equally
not a single core we must find. But the stonecutter's whole life may
affect how she shapes it.
"On a Raised Beach" is a magnificent long poem of stones as language.
>>> David Boyd <[log in to unmask]> 09/02/06 5:38 AM >>>
In a message dated 01/09/2006 22:42:17 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
The poem as a perceptual device of one's own world, and one's
own experience is much more relevant.
I take it you buy into the French view that the text exists apart from
human being that created it. Perhaps that old scenario of monkeys
can be updated to computers creating texts unrelated to human
leaving readers in solipsistic bliss. Diana
A lot of forays into and around and around the aesthetic theory maze are
being made just now !
- isn't it usually a case of layers of perception and multiple
/ meanings ? - eg., about which particular facets of the
skilfully-cut gem happened to sparkle for you as the perceiver at that
moment and in your particular state of [emotional *and* factual] mind.
thinking of a wellknown biblical image, isn't our perception as
adults of such things often of the 'but through a glass, darkly' kind ?
Similarly, this kind of extraneous 'knowledge' may reveal some more
facets but often
at the expense many of other [ often much brighter] ones but doesn't it
inevitably and irrevocably alter that experience ?
But, however we define them, suppose we're still discussing and
cut gemstones as opposed to crude and ugly lumps of coal or rock or