I'd like that dispensation too. And I petition to listen to Elliott Carter and
Albert Ayler on Thursdays before noon. Not to mention that any distinction
between a 'static' Cartesianism and a time 'dynamic' fractal geometry or
chaos/complexity is cosmetic. The foundation for both is a mathematics
fundamentally commutative (e.g. time indifferent) that requires the cinematic
formalism of moving backward and forward through time to work. In other words
its a strictly mathematical time and does not commute to the arts except as a
conceit. L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry thoughtlessly appropriated the hermetic symbol
of the eternal light of the mathematical sciences and for this they have paid an
horrific price.

And then you have the question of immortal scientific discoveries succumbing to
historically dependent time in their own right (see Feyerabend); e.g. their
'historicity' (see Heidegger). CP

Tim Bray wrote:

> At 02:56 PM 22/03/02 -0500, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >In my opinion, Mr. Lake has provided some of the most acute analysis on the
> >degeneracy of contemporary poetry and its causes.
>
> Elegantly written but... it seems profoundly misguided to make
> arguments along the lines that one artistic form is absolutely or
> even generally superior to another.  If it moves it moves you,
> if it doesn't it doesn't; the argument from form may be helpful
> in understanding the why of it, but telling people what *should*
> move them just feels pretentious and high-handed.  I am reminded
> of my parents, back in the 60s, telling me that popular music
> was all trash because eminent musicologists said so.  I shut
> up but thought of Galileo's muttered "and still they move".
>
> Not to mention that, as with many attempts to find parallels
> between art and science, the arguments from science are
> technically illiterate (yes, apparently you can drop the names
> of Fibonacci and Mandelbrot and still not understand what
> "linear" really means).  Yes, the study of emergent phenomena
> is interesting, and human intelligence is one of the most striking
> examples, but human intelligence occasionally emits free verse, and
> free verse occasionally moves me.  On this basis I should
> apologize for my degeneracy?  If I like sonnets too does that
> grant absolution?  Could I be given a dispensation to like
> free verse (and Ornette Coleman and James Joyce) on alternate
> Wednesdays? -Tim