Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:48:27 +0100
Platt and Magnus and LS
> 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."
Have I just gone around in circles to get to the same place? This could be
considered the philosophical equivalent of singing in the shower--immensely
satisfying for the doer, perhaps different for the listener. ;-)
Maggie
-- 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