poetics

Friday, January 28th, 2005

Jesse Abbot writes

But that does not repudiate the possibilities within the postmondern and deconstructive delight in the absence of intrinsics. We should so delight — at the same time recognizing we are treading on sacred ground. We are not the ones inscribing and erasing – this is a cosmological operation of remedial creativity much larger than we can remotely conceive. I will begin my upcoming “syllabus” of Cosmological Revision Poetics around such willfully presumptive premises.

I’d like Professor Abbot to write more about his conception of poetics, which is, I suspect, a penetrating exposition, and, I’m also suspecting, very much in the tradition of William Blake, but this may be entirely presumptuous. There must be a reason why (and I mean that in the sense of “insight”) Jesse will be drawing forth soon, especially in the conglutination of poetics and cosmology. I wonder what the tools will be.

For me one of the most interesting things about “understanding” in general is the “problem” of language and continuity between inside and outside (what I know and see and what I say I see), the internal and the external, and the cohesiveness of human space. I remember Neha’s quote from Augustine coming from The Confessions about losing an understanding of phenomena by trying to explain them. In many ways explanations lead to confusion, which is why we attempt clarity with terminology and extensive definition or skate away from the phenomenological approaches that may seem quaint these days.


Comments are closed.