|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 17, 2023 6:23:28 GMT -5
Denny, At first you said I should be 'taken to task' - you then said that my 'tone rankled' - and in your last response you said I had been 'deliberately offensive.' I do not like being personally and repeatedly attacked and I have become increasingly alarmed and distressed by language which indicates a lack of care for me and my feelings.
I have asked you to consider your motivation in responding to me. But I see that you mean to continue as you have begun. I said I would make adjustments accordingly. I am retreating because I do not feel that I am welcome. I have no further interest in the issues and I ask you to stop writing about me or to me in this way. I don't think anybody at ModPo would like being called 'deliberately offensive.'
I think that ModPo is diminished when debate is constrained. I believe these issues are worth debating more broadly.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 17, 2023 6:41:52 GMT -5
Well Cat one of my difficulties has been from the beginning just limiting to an analysis to a bite sized piece of excerpt. Of course maybe that in itself is the fractal geometry. I also feel as I have gone pretty far afield and not been particularly helpful here . I did post a comment on the first piece excepted but should maybe have put it here instead as it was a kind of example of where I had, it seems to me, agreed a bit with Laura while simultaneously disagreeing. I think Retallack is capacious and wide ranging especially in the Poethical Wager which is really one 300 page long essay of which I’ve only read the first two chapters. My comment had to do with ideas discussed concerning a complex realism and since I had written it in ‘notes’ I can post it again for whatever it’s worth… One funny thing about this talk about complex realism is how congruent it actually may be with the realism of the nineteenth century. Laura mentions Balzac who was a consummate writer, observer and chronicler of the human condition. His characters had a volition of their own based on their nature as they arose from the mind of the author in the act of their creation. This too may effectively be seen as a complex realism. Another of the great ‘realists ‘ who did the same was Tolstoy, a man who held himself to the fires of his time, later spoke of all his works as a waste of time, and very much considered and was actively involved in the issues of his day on and off the pages of his fictions, which came to him I believe not beforehand as if by same pre planned mechanism but as process of thinking and writing them on the page, a conception of bringing art into being not so different from what Retallack is talking about. Even the clever mixed fable tales of the tortoise and hare which Retallack devises and which evoke thoughts of the fabled ancient author of fables Aesop are likewise central to the ideas expounded in Tolstoys great novel War and Peace. Tolstoy was much taken to task by countless critics for mentioning this business midway in the novel, where he launches into a seemingly irrelevant to plot and character story of Achilles and the tortoise and how it’s said that Achilles cannot outrun the tortoise but only incrementally get closer, and from this metaphor Tolstoy crafts a narrative about the way he believes history itself works that is really not so different from Steins. Tolstoy seems to argue that history just happens as a somewhat organic evolving of of collective actions and really has very little to do with so called leaders. Tolstoy appears to have written the entire novel in an attempt to show what Stein effectively says in a sentence. In another analogous way, the great nineteenth century painter Whistler ran afoul of the critics, chiefly Ruskin, for his series of nocturnes which could be seen as presaging the abstract expressionist aesthetics of the mid twentieth Denny, this is useful to me. You've given a lot of useful context and considered attention. We do seem to be in the realm of fractals here, where you're saying Stein and Retallack are not really saying anything new -- which is what they say: "the only thing that is different is what is seen when it seems to be being seen, in other words, composition and time sense," or "The most obscure things have already been said." In the same way we're collectively driven to keep sexually reproducing, the suggestion seems to be that we're collectively driven to keep reproducing in all other ways as well, we are Sisyphus writ large. I must admit, this feels like a little breakthrough in appreciating their work. So, thank you. It feels like a bit of a nihilist field of enquiry to me, just one way of perceiving things, convincing though it may seem. I prefer hanging out in Dickinson's house of possibility.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 17, 2023 6:48:10 GMT -5
Denny, At first you said I should be 'taken to task' - you then said that my 'tone rankled' - and in your last response you said I had been 'deliberately offensive.' I do not like being personally and repeatedly attacked and I have become increasingly alarmed and distressed by language which indicates a lack of care for me and my feelings. I have asked you to consider your motivation in responding to me. But I see that you mean to continue as you have begun. I said I would make adjustments accordingly. I am retreating because I do not feel that I am welcome. I have no further interest in the issues and I ask you to stop writing about me or to me in this way. I don't think anybody at ModPo would like being called 'deliberately offensive.' I think that ModPo is diminished when debate is constrained. I believe these issues are worth debating more broadly. Laura, just to say I'm so sorry to read this. Denny also pointed out how much you bring to the discussions so I hope you're not forgetting this and I don't think anybody would like to think you don't feel welcome here! Be well.
|
|
|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 17, 2023 20:52:45 GMT -5
Cat, I appreciate your kind intent. However I've been described as "deliberately offensive." A "deliberately offensive" person is mean and nasty- that is how I receive such language and define it. What does it mean to you? Do you think it is reasonable to refer to me or to anybody else in this way?
I think this kind of language requires some unpacking. I believe in debate, but what kind of debate is it, that allows this kind of language to go unchallenged and therefore unchecked? Do you suggest that I respond in kind? And if you don't, exactly how do you think I, or anybody else should proceed who has been publicly humiliated in this way? Are you suggesting that I should be 'womanly' and 'meekly' accepting? Or are you suggesting that I continue to be critical, knowing that such attacks are unlikely to cease and that whatever I say will be scrutinised now for my "tone" and for my "offensiveness"and that I simply turn the other cheek?
What of others who like me have serious concerns about the various poetic and philosophical issues under discussion here? Will they feel more fearful of being honest, knowing that they too might be treated to such contemptuous language? And not just once, but repeatedly?
And what of other people who enjoy such fireworks? Will they feel emboldened and begin to use such language in their posts?
Social media is rife with personal attack. It has become accepted currency. What drew me to ModPo initially was the good will of people towards one another. I then agreed to become a mentor here at ModPo - not because I knew anything about poetry - but because I felt that such a distinctively congenial digital environment was special and it would be an honour to support it. It has been a honour. If I am writing passionately now to you, please understand that I do so in this context. Being civil matters.
|
|
|
Post by Denny on Jan 17, 2023 21:07:27 GMT -5
Cat, I appreciate your kind intent. However I've been described as "deliberately offensive." A "deliberately offensive" person is mean and nasty- that is how I receive such language and define it. What does it mean to you? Do you think it is reasonable to refer to me or to anybody else in this way? I think this kind of language requires some unpacking. I believe in debate, but what kind of debate is it, that allows this kind of language to go unchallenged and therefore unchecked? Do you suggest that I respond in kind? And if you don't, exactly how do you think I, or anybody else should proceed who has been publicly humiliated in this way? Are you suggesting that I should be 'womanly' and 'meekly' accepting? Or are you suggesting that I continue to be critical, knowing that such attacks are unlikely to cease and that whatever I say will be scrutinised now for my "tone" and for my "offensiveness"and that I simply turn the other cheek? What of others who like me have serious concerns about the various poetic and philosophical issues under discussion here? Will they feel more fearful of being honest, knowing that they too might be treated to such contemptuous language? And not just once, but repeatedly? And what of other people who enjoy such fireworks? Will they feel emboldened and begin to use such language in their posts? Social media is rife with personal attack. It has become accepted currency. What drew me to ModPo initially was the good will of people towards one another. I then agreed to become a mentor here at ModPo - not because I knew anything about poetry - but because I felt that such a distinctively congenial digital environment was special and it would be an honour to support it. It has been a honour. If I am writing passionately now to you, please understand that I do so in this context. Being civil matters. Laura I’m sorry and distressed to have made you feel this way as that is not and has not been my intention. You are an astute writer, observer and thinker who has contributed much and who has much to contribute. Whatever I have written here has been entirely my own opinion and entirely fallible, as am I. I sincerely apologize for any hurt I have caused.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 18, 2023 6:05:35 GMT -5
Cat, I appreciate your kind intent. However I've been described as "deliberately offensive." A "deliberately offensive" person is mean and nasty- that is how I receive such language and define it. What does it mean to you? Do you think it is reasonable to refer to me or to anybody else in this way? I think this kind of language requires some unpacking. I believe in debate, but what kind of debate is it, that allows this kind of language to go unchallenged and therefore unchecked? Do you suggest that I respond in kind? And if you don't, exactly how do you think I, or anybody else should proceed who has been publicly humiliated in this way? Are you suggesting that I should be 'womanly' and 'meekly' accepting? Or are you suggesting that I continue to be critical, knowing that such attacks are unlikely to cease and that whatever I say will be scrutinised now for my "tone" and for my "offensiveness"and that I simply turn the other cheek? What of others who like me have serious concerns about the various poetic and philosophical issues under discussion here? Will they feel more fearful of being honest, knowing that they too might be treated to such contemptuous language? And not just once, but repeatedly? And what of other people who enjoy such fireworks? Will they feel emboldened and begin to use such language in their posts? Social media is rife with personal attack. It has become accepted currency. What drew me to ModPo initially was the good will of people towards one another. I then agreed to become a mentor here at ModPo - not because I knew anything about poetry - but because I felt that such a distinctively congenial digital environment was special and it would be an honour to support it. It has been a honour. If I am writing passionately now to you, please understand that I do so in this context. Being civil matters. Laura, many thanks for this reply. It's clear Denny is familiar with you as a part of ModPo, and family sometimes say things in the heat of the moment. I agree he overreached by saying you were being 'deliberately offensive' (note this was not his description of *you* but of your post) as he has no way of knowing this, but you saw the potential to be interpreted as offensive when you wrote, 'This is not about causing offence' so the fact someone did interpret it as offensive is not all that surprising. I hope you accept Denny's apology and continue to offer your perspective and insights, which are far more educated than mine and which I enjoy, appreciate and learn from. We don't all have to agree on everything, where's the fun in that?, and I hope we're sometimes allowed to give in to the heat of the moment and be unreasonable and can trust each other enough to apologize, forgive and move on. As I see it, Denny is responsible for overreaching but he is not responsible for how personally you took his reaction -- I believe that's on you. His comment about your being deliberately offensive was out of line, they reflect on him rather than you, he's owned his mistake and apologized for it. I like civility but I treasure authenticity, and to me it trumps (hopefully this word doesn't re-trigger the beast in Denny) civility every time.
|
|
|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 19, 2023 10:46:11 GMT -5
Cat, Civility vs Authenticity - this is my take on it.
The statement "I hate Jews because they are responsible for all the ills in the world" has authenticity for the person who believes it and says it. It's a statment involving that person's personal truth and reflects their authentic beliefs about the nature of the the world's ills. For example, Ezra Pound was facist in his beliefs, and made anti-Semitic remarks of that kind. While I disagree with him, and any all such statements about culture and ethnicity of any kind, I would have to describe his beliefs as having authenticity for him.
Pound took a stand, was imprisoned for it when WW2 ended, and was then declared mentally ill and confined to an American psychiatric institution. There is considerable scholarship on the question of whether he was clinically insane or not, or whether his legal team declared insanity in order to avert an embarrassing war trial for a noted public intellectual. Upon serving his time in the psychiatric institution, he left America and returned to Italy, where he gave the Nazi salute to the media pack waiting for him there. The picture of him doing so is available on the internet. This action can be interpreted as an authentic statement of Pound's continuing personal beliefs in the viability of facism as a political movement and many were horrified by it and by the continuing silence of American intellectuals on this issue.
You believe that authenticity 'trumps civility every time'. I'm not so sure. I'm no expert in this field of moral argument. I have no expertise in anything. I am not a teacher or an academic. I am simply a mentor at ModPo. But it is how I see the issues. True civility is informed by an attitude of good will. It involves a fundamental position of respect for all human beings, which does not allow for authentic statements of the kind that I offered above. Without civility there can be no social harmony.
Jane Austen has been mentioned in various threads here. I believe that this argument about civility reflects Austen's essential position on what makes societies come together or fall apart. I do not read her as arguing that authenticity trumps civility. I also consider her continuing and extraordinary popularity as reflecting the moral positions she took. People see the social breakdown that is happening - they experience personal 'incivility' if you will - and when they read her, they begin to understand how much good will and respect and care for others feelings matters to social harmony. Civility is in the DNA of her novels.
These issues matter to me. Facism is on the rise across the world. The far right groups in Germany, in Europe generally, in the USA, and here in Australia, etc, offer authentic expressions of their true beliefs. But such expressions are accompanied by a breakdown in respect and good will, in short civility - eg, here in Australia, there have been calls for politicians to be hung from nooses, or made into 'pink mist', etc.
If I took a stand here on these issues here at ModPo, it is because I believe that they are the most important issues facing us as social beings today. Without civility there is chaos.
You might think that I am over-stating the issues. I don't think so. I can't walk into my local bookstore without being greeted by signs such as 'respect for staff is important' or 'aggressive behaviour will not be tolerated.' What is going on? Do people walk into bookstores now aggressively complaining and attacking staff because their favourite Agatha Christie is not in stock? Such signs urging good will in many stores now, reflects a breakdown of civility at all levels of social and political functioining.
So, I state again, being civil matters. You are urging me to be reasonable and to forgive and forget. I am suggesting a different kind of engagement. I am suggesting a discussion of such vital issues.
And, yes, I did say of my posts that 'this is not about causing offence' and you are right to say that someone actually taking offence 'is not all that surprising.' But there's a difference between being offended and the action one takes in response to it. If I offered the qualifier, it was by way of suggesting that anyone who took offence should consider how they were going to respond. My statement was cautionary - think before you answer me. The point I have sought to make, over and over again, is that being offended doesn't give a person the right to be offensive in turn, even if you feel that you are being authentic.
Final point: Why would people be offended by my posts? I have pondered this at length. I encountered the issue when I first joined ModPo 7 years ago. I could say whatever I liked about William Carlos Williams for instance and nobody took offence. But when Gertrude Stein was up for discussion, I quickly realised that the territory had altered significantly. I was critical and people took offence. They were caustic, etc, and the attacks were personal. One person for instance didn't interact with me for years, although we are firm ModPo friends now. But initially, I quickly learned that if I wanted to stay at ModPo, I should not write about Stein. And I mostly didn't, unless it seemed reasonable for me, later as a mentor, to support others who were struggling with being critical of her.
The common line at ModPo is that everybody's take on a poem is acceptable. Really? When I spoke up initially about Stein, I was flooded by people who told me how to 'get' Stein. Post after post of: this is what you're missing, or this is how I got Stein and I hope you get her too, as she's wonderful, etc. But if everybody's take on a poem is acceptable, why wasn't my take on Stein acceptable? Nobody said, 'oh you disagree, that is acceptable, and I am interested to hear in what you've got to say.' I still don't write about Stein.
I came to this forum wondering how it would go if I were critical of Joan Retallack. I naturally presumed that people would take offence - Retallack and Stein are in the same ball park - and I made decisions about how I would resond this time round if people reacted negatively. Why? Because Al, in another thread, said that he believed 'respectful disagreement was urged'. I haven't got the exact quote or link at the ready, as it's in the other ModPo, but he said words to that effect. I took Al at his word. I decided to see what would happen if I did my best to 'respectfully disagree.' I'm not saying that I am terrific at it. My communication skills are not strong. I have some awareness of my limitations. But I was willing to give it my best shot because of Al's invaluable advice to me that I continue to explore my concerns about modernism and experimental poetry here at ModPo regardless of how difficult it was for me to do.
|
|
|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 19, 2023 12:20:55 GMT -5
Denny, I didn't understand your reaction and still don't. Despite attending my zooms and regularly interacting with me in my threads etc - your attitude to me suddenly shifted - and appeared to move from friendliness to hostility. This is not about my contribution to ModPo generally. It was as if I had no credit in the bank with you. It was the fact that we had a certain kind of easy-going relationship, emails back and forth, and then, poof, it was all gone. I was struck by that.
Often people offer apologies and they are accepted and everyone involved breathes a sigh of relief and waits for the dust to settle. Sometimes it settles, and good will is truly restored, but sometimes it doesn't. And that's because social norms involving group harmony hold sway - people do what others urge and expect them to do - ie apologise in your case and in my case accept the apology - while the underlying issues driving the disagreement remain unresolved.
So I am going to be really honest here. I have serious personal failures when it comes to apologies generally. I tend not to forgive and forget. I tend to remember. That's a huge failing. There are reasons for this, of course, but I am not going to make them public. When it comes to fallibility, I score on the high end. That's nothing to be proud of. It's just a fact.
Ageing is an unpleasant process. The body breaks down, but moral fibre can stiffen and grow. You and I may continue to fight. We may continue to offend and be offended. There may be underlying issues which require continued attention and resolution. I don't know. It is possible. Huamn behaviour is complex and many a ceasefire is accompanied by a resurgence of hostilities.
Regardless, my hope is that our moral fibre - yours, mine - and the ways in which we shift around the issues in play - probing the territory, with honesty, respect and authenticity - grow in strength and personal richness.
May Wong, "In the Same Light": the book you referred me to finally arrived. Warmest, warmest thanks for your find, sublime, what bliss! Here's some excerpts from Li Bai, "Farewell to my Uncle, The Imperial Librarian, at Xie Tao Pavilion", p88-89:
...What is left, Today's day messes up my heart, All day.
...You wrote in the skeletal style of the Taoist Peng Lui & I the upstart, clearly was conceived in another mode. Yet we converse like two of the same school.
My uncle, I have no agenda but the blue yonder, A drinking song The moon in my arms.
...A man can't find his place in the world - No, I'll be up early the morrow, Hair loose Feet on a skiff Afloat Whatever floats
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 20, 2023 6:30:03 GMT -5
Cat, Civility vs Authenticity - this is my take on it. The statement "I hate Jews because they are responsible for all the ills in the world" has authenticity for the person who believes it and says it. It's a statment involving that person's personal truth and reflects their authentic beliefs about the nature of the the world's ills. For example, Ezra Pound was facist in his beliefs, and made anti-Semitic remarks of that kind. While I disagree with him, and any all such statements about culture and ethnicity of any kind, I would have to describe his beliefs as having authenticity for him. Pound took a stand, was imprisoned for it when WW2 ended, and was then declared mentally ill and confined to an American psychiatric institution. There is considerable scholarship on the question of whether he was clinically insane or not, or whether his legal team declared insanity in order to avert an embarrassing war trial for a noted public intellectual. Upon serving his time in the psychiatric institution, he left America and returned to Italy, where he gave the Nazi salute to the media pack waiting for him there. The picture of him doing so is available on the internet. This action can be interpreted as an authentic statement of Pound's continuing personal beliefs in the viability of facism as a political movement and many were horrified by it and by the continuing silence of American intellectuals on this issue. You believe that authenticity 'trumps civility every time'. I'm not so sure. I'm no expert in this field of moral argument. I have no expertise in anything. I am not a teacher or an academic. I am simply a mentor at ModPo. But it is how I see the issues. True civility is informed by an attitude of good will. It involves a fundamental position of respect for all human beings, which does not allow for authentic statements of the kind that I offered above. Without civility there can be no social harmony. Jane Austen has been mentioned in various threads here. I believe that this argument about civility reflects Austen's essential position on what makes societies come together or fall apart. I do not read her as arguing that authenticity trumps civility. I also consider her continuing and extraordinary popularity as reflecting the moral positions she took. People see the social breakdown that is happening - they experience personal 'incivility' if you will - and when they read her, they begin to understand how much good will and respect and care for others feelings matters to social harmony. Civility is in the DNA of her novels. These issues matter to me. Facism is on the rise across the world. The far right groups in Germany, in Europe generally, in the USA, and here in Australia, etc, offer authentic expressions of their true beliefs. But such expressions are accompanied by a breakdown in respect and good will, in short civility - eg, here in Australia, there have been calls for politicians to be hung from nooses, or made into 'pink mist', etc. If I took a stand here on these issues here at ModPo, it is because I believe that they are the most important issues facing us as social beings today. Without civility there is chaos. You might think that I am over-stating the issues. I don't think so. I can't walk into my local bookstore without being greeted by signs such as 'respect for staff is important' or 'aggressive behaviour will not be tolerated.' What is going on? Do people walk into bookstores now aggressively complaining and attacking staff because their favourite Agatha Christie is not in stock? Such signs urging good will in many stores now, reflects a breakdown of civility at all levels of social and political functioining. So, I state again, being civil matters. You are urging me to be reasonable and to forgive and forget. I am suggesting a different kind of engagement. I am suggesting a discussion of such vital issues. And, yes, I did say of my posts that 'this is not about causing offence' and you are right to say that someone actually taking offence 'is not all that surprising.' But there's a difference between being offended and the action one takes in response to it. If I offered the qualifier, it was by way of suggesting that anyone who took offence should consider how they were going to respond. My statement was cautionary - think before you answer me. The point I have sought to make, over and over again, is that being offended doesn't give a person the right to be offensive in turn, even if you feel that you are being authentic. Final point: Why would people be offended by my posts? I have pondered this at length. I encountered the issue when I first joined ModPo 7 years ago. I could say whatever I liked about William Carlos Williams for instance and nobody took offence. But when Gertrude Stein was up for discussion, I quickly realised that the territory had altered significantly. I was critical and people took offence. They were caustic, etc, and the attacks were personal. One person for instance didn't interact with me for years, although we are firm ModPo friends now. But initially, I quickly learned that if I wanted to stay at ModPo, I should not write about Stein. And I mostly didn't, unless it seemed reasonable for me, later as a mentor, to support others who were struggling with being critical of her. The common line at ModPo is that everybody's take on a poem is acceptable. Really? When I spoke up initially about Stein, I was flooded by people who told me how to 'get' Stein. Post after post of: this is what you're missing, or this is how I got Stein and I hope you get her too, as she's wonderful, etc. But if everybody's take on a poem is acceptable, why wasn't my take on Stein acceptable? Nobody said, 'oh you disagree, that is acceptable, and I am interested to hear in what you've got to say.' I still don't write about Stein. I came to this forum wondering how it would go if I were critical of Joan Retallack. I naturally presumed that people would take offence - Retallack and Stein are in the same ball park - and I made decisions about how I would resond this time round if people reacted negatively. Why? Because Al, in another thread, said that he believed 'respectful disagreement was urged'. I haven't got the exact quote or link at the ready, as it's in the other ModPo, but he said words to that effect. I took Al at his word. I decided to see what would happen if I did my best to 'respectfully disagree.' I'm not saying that I am terrific at it. My communication skills are not strong. I have some awareness of my limitations. But I was willing to give it my best shot because of Al's invaluable advice to me that I continue to explore my concerns about modernism and experimental poetry here at ModPo regardless of how difficult it was for me to do. Hi Laura, I fervently wish you hadn't felt the need to quote hate speech to me to convey your point of view. But, moving on... I would prefer to know exactly who I'm dealing with rather than have them hide their hateful opinions behind a veil of civility, so that is for me why, yes, authenticity trumps civility. Every time. Doesn't mean I want anything to do with an authentic asshole, but I also don't want anything to do with a civil asshole. Your belief that "without civility there is chaos" reminds me of the Martin Luther King quote: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s greatest stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice..." I don't know if there's a breakdown in civility, as you describe, in so-called Australia, or if civility was ever widespread or deep in a nation only constructed in 1901 and built on genocide, dispossession and a total absence of consent or treaties. When you write, "The point I have sought to make, over and over again, is that being offended doesn't give a person the right to be offensive in turn, even if you feel that you are being authentic." -- I'm puzzled because I can't see anyone disagreeing with this. I disagree with what you say about Stein and ModPo, because I also haven't (yet) warmed to Stein's work, and I too stopped engaging with her poems on the forum, because I don't want to be a wet rag dampening other people's enthusiasm with what I consider my ignorance. I would say, though, that your responses and my responses on Stein are evidently acceptable to ModPo -- if you were burning to post something about Stein you could do that right now. This would surely not be the case if your views were deemed 'unacceptable'. I highly doubt that being critical of Retallack's work was in itself a problem for anyone. My final reflection is I think you've had a pretty exciting time in this SloPo and have a lot to reflect on, which is brilliant. Well done!
|
|
|
Post by Denny on Jan 20, 2023 16:19:15 GMT -5
Denny, I didn't understand your reaction and still don't. Despite attending my zooms and regularly interacting with me in my threads etc - your attitude to me suddenly shifted - and appeared to move from friendliness to hostility. This is not about my contribution to ModPo generally. It was as if I had no credit in the bank with you. It was the fact that we had a certain kind of easy-going relationship, emails back and forth, and then, poof, it was all gone. I was struck by that. Often people offer apologies and they are accepted and everyone involved breathes a sigh of relief and waits for the dust to settle. Sometimes it settles, and good will is truly restored, but sometimes it doesn't. And that's because social norms involving group harmony hold sway - people do what others urge and expect them to do - ie apologise in your case and in my case accept the apology - while the underlying issues driving the disagreement remain unresolved. So I am going to be really honest here. I have serious personal failures when it comes to apologies generally. I tend not to forgive and forget. I tend to remember. That's a huge failing. There are reasons for this, of course, but I am not going to make them public. When it comes to fallibility, I score on the high end. That's nothing to be proud of. It's just a fact. Ageing is an unpleasant process. The body breaks down, but moral fibre can stiffen and grow. You and I may continue to fight. We may continue to offend and be offended. There may be underlying issues which require continued attention and resolution. I don't know. It is possible. Huamn behaviour is complex and many a ceasefire is accompanied by a resurgence of hostilities. Regardless, my hope is that our moral fibre - yours, mine - and the ways in which we shift around the issues in play - probing the territory, with honesty, respect and authenticity - grow in strength and personal richness. May Wong, "In the Same Light": the book you referred me to finally arrived. Warmest, warmest thanks for your find, sublime, what bliss! Here's some excerpts from Li Bai, "Farewell to my Uncle, The Imperial Librarian, at Xie Tao Pavilion", p88-89: ...What is left, Today's day messes up my heart, All day. ...You wrote in the skeletal style of the Taoist Peng Lui & I the upstart, clearly was conceived in another mode. Yet we converse like two of the same school. My uncle, I have no agenda but the blue yonder, A drinking song The moon in my arms. ...A man can't find his place in the world - No, I'll be up early the morrow, Hair loose Feet on a skiff Afloat Whatever floats Stein must be laughing at us from someplace cause it seems we’ve pushed each other’s buttons and they were a bit tender. We can and should be able to debate and disagree on poetry and aesthetics. It seems a little ironic that such an exchange regarding a subject like ‘poethics’ would let that ‘splinter swerve’ knock us off the ‘groove’. We have strong opinions. A couple mentions in a few posts rubbed me wrong and I did a poor job of registering my disagreement most especially as it was read as personal attack and that certainly was not intended. Because of the timeliness of exchanges here on Modpo our responses are often a bit ad hoc & I’m not so good on me feet really. I don’t think I’d last long on a debate team. They’d take me to the cleaners. We’re good so far as I’m concerned as that colloquialism goes. I have no ill feelings towards you and I never did. I do still admittedly have my opinions. This exchange has been particularly challenging for me as I feel simultaneously misunderstood and subsequently suppose that I haven’t communicated clearly and then feel at a loss to know how to do so. I’m afraid that trying to explain further is going to make me sound combative again or defensive. Maybe it’s all a result of my misreading your opinions. I believe you did say, to paraphrase here, that you didn’t think Modpo was tolerant of criticism of Stein and so you had stopped voicing your own doubts about Stein as a result and that you’d wanted to see what would happen if you were critical of JR and so were effectively inviting debate or reaction. Debate is good and necessary and reaction is unhealthy and unfortunately I fell too far on the latter scale of that equation. One thing that had driven me a little nuts was mention of Q as some sort of comparative for the ideas discussed. If anyone had written what I took to be a misrepresentation of JR’s ideas in a post that also included references to conspiracy theories to frame their opinions I’d probably have said something about it. I figure I took all that in a way it was not meant to be taken or read but maybe that helps explain what you still say you don’t understand about my reaction. Thanks for including the Lai Bai & I’m so glad you are enjoying the Wong May translations. I’ve been reading them myself chronologically and still look forward to getting to the end where it looks like May writes extensively about the poetry & translation
|
|
|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 21, 2023 17:18:49 GMT -5
Thanks Denny, for your thoughtful words, and your insight. Debate vs reaction - I like that distinction very much. It can be very difficult to maintain a sense of the distinction in the heat of argumentative battle. I think you're right to say that 'professional' debators, namely people who have been trained in the skilled art of debate, understand it well. But I fear that I like you, would probably be taken to the cleaners by a skilled debator.
I wonder whether there's a 'debating for dummies' book! I enjoy learning about the art of communication - how words move between people - for better or worse.
In terms of the Q issue, if it 'drove you nuts' - then, from a Buddhist perspective - that's something to take a look it. That's how I am trained. What 'drives me nuts' is what I spend most of my time investigating - meditating and reflecting on - with a view to shifting perceptions, and what's called the formations, behavioural habit patterns etc.
In Buddhism, the lotus flower is a symbol of the process of insight. From the mud, a flower blooms that is beautiful, pristine. From the mud of 'what drives you or me nuts' blooms the flower, the understanding, the insight and the perceptual shifts. The Ch'an poets that we've both been drawn to understood this. It's what makes their poetry so effective, so moving - because, quite literally, the poetry moves - it is descriptive of process - of perceptual shifts - of insight developing.
Li Bai's conclusion, "Afloat / Whatever floats" is pointing to this. A modern teacher once described it to me as 'groundless ground.' If all is process, there is no terra firma, no ground, solid, upon which I stand. I am 'afloat', the implication being I am also always in danger of sinking.
We were in danger of sinking, no question. Sinking into the mud of argumentation, bitterness and resentment - all the big Buddhist no nos. But we managed to get through it. Thanks for engaging with me in these ways. It has been very important to me to experience. I appreciate it greatly, more than I can express here.
|
|
|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 21, 2023 17:55:19 GMT -5
Cat, There is much that I do not understand about your response. I'll answer one specific comment only. If you want me to answer other points that you have made, please say.
You say that you chose not to express reservations about Stein because: "I don't want to be a wet rag dampening other people's enthusiasm with what I consider my ignorance." I do not think that way. I am not saying that your response lacks rigour or intelligence. I am saying that I come from a different point of view - not better, not worse - just different. I am not evaluating your response in any way.
Here at ModPo, what Al has invited me to do, and why I treasure ModPo, is to think for myself. I am not beholden to a 'top down teaching' approach. There's no teacher here telling me how or what to think about a poem. I believe that ModPo may well be unique in that, and in another thread of mine in the other ModPo, I made a point of seeking to better understand the underlying dynamics of how ModPo actually functions.
I've been in poetry groups, where the teacher holds the floor, and while I learn a vast deal from the teacher's exquisite intelligence and erudition, I tend as a result to come at a poem like the teacher does. I move from a position of ignorance to a position of the teacher's knowledge about the poem.
At ModPo, I come at a poem for and with myself. I do not listen to the videos or read anything about the poem. There's me, there's the words, and there's the poet lurking behind those words. I presume ignorance. I do not presume anything else. Ignorance is my starting point. How I manage that ignorance - how I seek to become less ignorant - is not by listening to a teacher - but by listening to how the poem makes its way in mind, my heart, my body. Yes, I read what others say about it in the forums. I do my best to respect their points of view and not be a wet rag. But my intention is to receive a poem for myself and if I feel that there are problems with the poem then I do not presume that I am necessarily wrong or misguided. I presume only that I am reading it differently, and that that difference has merit.
I say again that I stopped writing about Stein when I first joined for the same reason that I stopped writing about Retallack here. My words were inviting personal attack. I am asking you to respect that that is my experience. It may not be yours. I accept that of you. But my experience is of personal attack. Perhaps I invite it, with the way in which I frame my approach. In the coming months I'll take another look at that.
But I think that Denny rightly stated the problem: Debate vs reaction. That's a huge issue, which I won't go into here. But he's right, spot on.
That I managed to get through the various skirmishes that arose is testament to what Al and many others have taught me here and the underlying dynamic of ModPo itself. It is also a testament to your and Denny's willingness to continue to engage with me. I appreciate that. Most people turn away. As you can see, nobody else got involved. Good will matters, and your good will mattered a great deal.
But I am not so sure about your final 'well done.' I am not looking for elephant stamps here. I do not understand your language or what you are meaning to convey with your final comment. It does not sit well with me. I am not a child and I hardly know you. Please email me at sharingpoetry@outlook.com if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 22, 2023 2:42:22 GMT -5
Hi Laura, The 'well done!' was as from a spectator watching someone do something courageous, or like when the crowd watch flamenco dancers and call out, 'ole!' I see how it could have landed but this is how I meant it. I think you've put yourself out there courageously. It was respect. I accept that you believe you were personally attacked when you wrote about Stein and Retallack. I do also think there are sensitivities around Stein at ModPo, and loved what Denny wrote about Stein laughing at us from on high. I like the confidence you have in your opinions, which sounds like self-respect, and maybe I need more of this and will think about that. I especially like how much you also value ModPo, and why. Thank you for such a lovely acknowledgement of my willingness to engage. It can be a bit scary to connect as the flawed beings we are but it's so worthwhile. Here's to more.
|
|
|
Post by Laura De Bernardi on Jan 22, 2023 17:21:14 GMT -5
Thanks, Cat, warm thanks! It's often good to repeat a word, to make sure that, in this digital environment, the warmth that accompanies it transcends the cold barrier of technology.
We do not see each other's faces. Mine lit up, reading your good words!
Confidence in my opinions! I wish! Sometimes I say the most stupid things. Thinking for myself - not being guided by a teacher - can lead me into all sorts of silly by-ways. A good teacher can tweak that kind of learning process and redirect intellectual energies. When you're doing it on your own, a lot of effort goes in, for sometimes not much gain. I've learned that here too.
But, and this is where the worthwhile gains are, for me: I am in a non-ModPo poetry group, led by a brilliant teacher - erudite beyond belief - Old English specialist, a mediavelist - phew! I listen to him and I find myself engaging differently. I think about what he says. I have the poem inside me, making its move in my heart and mind, and his words are secondary. ModPo has taught me to think.
It's not that his words are 'secondary' from a 'knowledge' point of view, if you get my meaning. Of course not. There are interpretations which he offers that are dazzling.
It's that his erudition is not the driver of my appreciation of a poem.
I could not have done that without Al's concept of a 'citizen poetics' which, in powering ModPo, empowers its citizens.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 22, 2023 19:19:00 GMT -5
Thanks, Cat, warm thanks! It's often good to repeat a word, to make sure that, in this digital environment, the warmth that accompanies it transcends the cold barrier of technology. We do not see each other's faces. Mine lit up, reading your good words! Confidence in my opinions! I wish! Sometimes I say the most stupid things. Thinking for myself - not being guided by a teacher - can lead me into all sorts of silly by-ways. A good teacher can tweak that kind of learning process and redirect intellectual energies. When you're doing it on your own, a lot of effort goes in, for sometimes not much gain. I've learned that here too. But, and this is where the worthwhile gains are, for me: I am in a non-ModPo poetry group, led by a brilliant teacher - erudite beyond belief - Old English specialist, a mediavelist - phew! I listen to him and I find myself engaging differently. I think about what he says. I have the poem inside me, making its move in my heart and mind, and his words are secondary. ModPo has taught me to think. It's not that his words are 'secondary' from a 'knowledge' point of view, if you get my meaning. Of course not. There are interpretations which he offers that are dazzling. It's that his erudition is not the driver of my appreciation of a poem. I could not have done that without Al's concept of a 'citizen poetics' which, in powering ModPo, empowers its citizens. Warm thanks to you, Laura. I love the embodying of poetry you refer to. Also, agree with how empowering the ModPo way is, and that goes for Retallack too, who I'm still wrestling with but who I have found empowering to read.
|
|