*Goonight Bill. Goonight Lou. Goonight May. Goonight. *

*Ta ta. Goonight. Goonight. *
*Good night, ladies, good night, sweet ladies, good night, good night. *

*The river bears no empty bottles, sandwich papers, *

*Silk handkerchiefs, cardboard boxes, cigarette ends *
*Or other testimony of summer nights. The nymphs are departed. *

The poetry does stretch beyond the visible, the said, and implicates the
invisible, the unsaid, the incommensurable, the ultimate.

A pretty symbolic mode.


On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It seems impossible to say anything without it becoming a totally tiresome
> personal attack. I did say something, as did Carrol. I don't see any point
> to repeating it. But mean-spirited personal remarks do not mean I missed
> anything. And as obnoxious as it is to say this, I really don't think you
> are qualified to tell me what I understand or miss. One could quite
> logically--from your statement--argue that symbols give classified ads the
> CAPACITY [emphasis yours] to elicit the incommensurable and transcendent.
> In fact, watching even a few on TV suggests that fast cars, chocolates,
> shampoo, air fresheners, Cialis (though in separate bathtubs),
> "everything's better when it ships free," (now have a slightly hysterical
> upsurge of ecstasy), [fill in your own]--are all instant routes to the
> incommensurable and transcendent.
> This is predictable and immediate leap to sneering is also, I think, why
> this list long ago ceased to sustain any real discussion.
> Nancy
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Ken A <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In the ever so brief quote from Hughes, he said the symbolic nature of
> poetry gives it the CAPACITY to elicit the incommensurable and
> transcendence. Why assert that this excludes anything else that poetry
> might do? Carrol and you apparently missed that seemingly reasonable part
> of the formulation.  Of Carrol's objection to Hughes' wordiness: at least
> Hughes had something to say. Most especially on the T S Eliot list, I would
> hope that poetry's dealings with ultimate meaning, the incommensurable, and
> transcendence constitute eminently appropriate topics of conversation.
> Ken A
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The issue I raised is about "symbol" vs. "symbolist."
> N
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "Neither flesh nor fleshless"
> "concentration / Without elimination"
> No, it does not exclude anything. It includes the physical as well as the
> metaphysical.  Only it does not exclude the ultimate, the permanent, the
> Absolute. It adds something to, and thus enriches, our experience of this
> world.
> *Who is the third who walks always beside you? *
> *When I count, there are only you and I together *
> *But when I look ahead up the white road *
> *There is always another one walking beside you *
> *Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded *
> *I do not know whether a man or a woman *
> *—But who is that on the other side of you? *
> CR
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:12 PM Nancy Gish < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The issue here is, as you note, what one means by "symbolic." Hughes seems
> to think it is the same as "symbolist" in the notion of being a gateway to
> a spiritual world outside physical reality. That would seem to cut out a
> great deal of poetry--like imagism, or WCW or Levertov or any poet who saw
> or sees poems as ways to engage with the material world directly.
> Otherwise, as you say, it is just a tautology.
> Nancy
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "Because poetry is fundamentally symbolic in its form, it possesses the
> capacity to suggest the incommensurable and unknowable of the
> transcendence
> and thereby reawaken the spiritual experiences that gave rise to the
> symbols
> and stories of poetry in the first place."
> This is an odd proposition. Classified ads are fundamentally symbolic.
> Porn
> videos on YouTube  are fundamentally symbolic. Coffee-shop chatter is
> fundamentally symbolic. Nothing in particular follows from the tautology
> that poetry is symbolic.
> The portentousness of the mere word, "symbol," is itself a bit odd.
> And what is the difference between "poetry is symbolic" and "poetry is
> fundamentally symbolic in its form"?
> Carrol