>From: "R.Gancie/C.Parcelli" <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: - Ezra Pound discussion list of the University of Maine > <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: "self-sufficient work of art" >Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 11:23:51 -0500 > >Tim, > >After your lucid comment on dramatic structure in an epic like the Cantos, >I must >say you've lost me here. So I'll simply make some random observations. > >[Wait let me get more coffee.] > >My use of the notion of "arcane" was meant to be in contra-distinction to >yours. >The usual meaning especially as regards literature implies a non-utile >dimension, >that is that the public for example can ignore the arcana if it chooses >becuase it >little impacts on their daily existence. > >However, now with the rise of hundreds of scientific and technical >specialties not >to mention specialties outside of these two general disciplines we have >"arcana", >if you will, which profoundly effect the utility of our everyday lives. In >large >part Pound sought, mistakenly, a return to a culture not as reliant on >'specialties.' > >Thus, Pound's arcana are generally speaking comfortably non-utile. Hence, >he >clearly has not written the "anthem to Fascism" because any >political/military >movement that does not ground itself in modern science and technology will >be >ground under as recently witnessed. Pound never included a paean to >Fascism's >reliance and development of modern weapons of war such as the V-1, V-2 >rocket. > >I, for one, seeing this as a serious epistemological lacuna in the Cantos >decades >ago sought to put myself in the center of the concern for the everyday >arcana that >is science and technology. Your email seems to suggest that to engage this >arcana >in its original forms violates some sort of communication with the poetry >reader. >Let's leave aside the obligation of the reader because, generally, this is >one >'obligation' the reader has no intention of meeting. > >There are all important ontological and epistemological dimensions to >scientific >and technological arcana. To simplify, this provides a philosophical and >"expository" bridge from the dominant epistemologies of the sciences to >"epic" >poetry as you've described it. This, for me, is also the field of poetic >engagement >because this is the field of dialectic. On one side lies the sciences in >all of >their mathematical/formal immunity. On the other, the public in all of its >naive >acceptance. (Exceptions would appear to be the environment, nuclear power >and >biogenetics though challenges here are not at the epistemological level. In >fact, >their criticisms lose much of their force because they do not attach an >epistemological dimension to the moral and ethical arguments that they >proffer.) > >When you write: ><Within those narrative limitations, the modern epic poet might well be >able to >create a dramatic narrative that showed how statistical probabilities have >come to >affect the >quality of life as lived by the man in the street.> >you are addressing a poet who has done exactly that for years and within >more >scientific taxonomies than just Game Theory. As far as Game Theory, I just >appear >particularly prescient again which is not surprising because it is the type >of >study I am involved in all the time. As far as the man in the street; he >needs to >get wacked upside the head with something heavier than a manuscript. > >My urging is simply that more poets engage underlying epistemologies of >their time >and not abandon the lessons of the high modernist model whether it be >through the >cipher of Pound, Joyce, Eliot, Olson, Zukofsky, Tolson, Duncan, Jones (yes, >Jones) >et al. It seems to me that if you are not aware of these underlying forces >and >their infuence, the poetry generated is going to be derivative of this >influence >without having any understanding with which to form a dialectic. I don't >begin Tale >of the Tribe with Hegel out of Kant just to be beating my gums. Its the >limitations >of the scientific epistemology of perception and the grounds upon which >those >limitations and their consequences effect everyday existence. > >I would contend that contemproary poet's are largely 'consumers' of an >epistemology >that they don't understand much less have the ability to critique. As for >readers: >as far as overall numbers are concerned my percentile is not much lower >than >Pound's or Olson's. To the naked eye the needle seems to be resting at the >bottom. >Carlo Parcelli > >P.S. I apologize in advance for any grammatical or spelling errors in my >email. > > >Tim Romano wrote: > > > Epic demands that exposition be subordinated to dramatic human action. >The > > epic poet can make extensive use of speeches and narrative, killing the > > birds of exposition and character revelation with one stone. In offering > > the poet the freedom to put words into the mouths of characters and into > > the mouth of an omniscient narrator, the genre gives the poet the tools > > necessary to expound a theme and to create a drama. Within those >narrative > > limitations, the modern epic poet might well be able to create a >dramatic > > narrative that showed how statistical probabilities have come to affect >the > > quality of life as lived by the man in the street. But the audience >ought > > not be expected to have --or be willing to acquire-- an actuary's >knowledge > > in order to understand that theme. There is rarely if ever a need for >any > > abstruse technicality, raw and undigested, itself to become the subject > > matter of the poem; when that happens, the artist is not making a poem >but > > passing an owl-pellet. > > Tim Romano > > > > Carlo Parcelli wrote: > > > > >[...] > > >Nash's work is tremendously influential and has broad application. >Nash's work > > >along with Heisenberg's, Bohr's, Pitts' (another good melodrama) and > > >McCulloch's, Watson's and Crick's, von Neumann's, Turing's, Weiner's, > > >Shannon's > > >and dozens of others forms the theoretical and practical bedrock of our >daily > > >lives. Can the consumer of 'epics' only explore this as melodrama, >ghosted > > >forces that make self-interest possible, or in simple allegories of >good and > > >evil? If not through the Cantos, Maximus, "A" etc., how else would such >an > > >ambitious and risky poetics proceed? Carlo Parcelli Mr Romano Your "notes" are on target, and well-taken. I would only add that the percentage of poets/writers who "think before they speak" is probably about the same in the General Population. So, for every Pound or Joyce, we will inevitably have 99 Frosts or Sandburgs. And I don't suppose it's ever been much different, whether in Sumeria or Soho -- the One Percent leap forward, dragging the many minds kicking and screaming along behind them. Thanks for the Thoughts _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com