|
Post by jimlynch on Jan 13, 2023 1:40:50 GMT -5
“Where and what exactly is the surface of a cat?” > > Where and what exactly is “the surface of a cat”? What does this even mean? How many possible meanings are there? What kind of phrase is this? The surface of a cat is “where and what exactly”. Where and what precisely is the surface of a cat? What is a surface? Where to start? Paragraph Two, in which the ModPo Student expresses an opinion or two.
Every body is a different body. Every cat is a different cat. There is no cat. There is no cat and it has no opinion. It is not even astonished – not exactly. I can sense nonsense a mile away. I have no idea what I'm doing but I'm doing it. Morally speaking, Jane Austen's cat was the most cat-like cat in England. Precisely speaking, my dictionary is the most dictionary-like dictionary in South Carolina. SURFACE: Sur: over, super, on top of, above, up. Face: too many meanings to list here, but common enough. More importantly, derived from L facere, to make, to do and (see Do) Gk tithenai, to place, set. [Dare we look up make, place and set?] (As in How To Do Things With Words) As in poetry, poesis, poiesis – creation; or poet, poietes, poien, to make, create. Is Retallack overdoing it here? Can it BE overdone?? SURFACE: Overlook. Overrecognize. Overmake. Overdo. To rise up. To surface to the surface. Face the face. Turn and surface the music. Does J.L. refer to jail, and to The Prison-House of Language (Jameson)?? Or to jail as in cage, as in John? Does Jane refer to plain, as in plain Jane or Jane Doe (read Do) or plain sense? Does Austen/Austin refer to austere: somber, morally strict (watch your manners), sensible? SENSE: In what sense is sense a “mechanism of meaning”? Is meaning feeling? Is meaning perception? Can one smell rationality? In this section we will skip left over the science of Bananometry and get right to the tip.
Two of Al's questions, compounded: “In what way can “precisely” be distinguished from “exactly”?” “What is to be gained, if anything, from “the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense”?” Precisely everything, exactly nothing. Fresh better than frozen or rotten. I prefer my nonsense pre-cut. In the face of the blow, prior to the strike. Exacta: perfecta – opposite of errata, error? Exactations of Attention? Can you feel the nonsense, can you measure it? Ex-act. Out of act. From act. Former act. Forced. Forced Measurement. You can't force sense to make nonsense. This sentence makes no sense. Exalt the exact and excise the precipitate. In what way can “exactly” be astonished from “precisely”? What isn't sense that wasn't nonsense at one time? When I was three? I was reading my father's copy of Swift's Gulliver's Travels and I couldn't understand a word of it. When I was 1 year and 2 months, I couldn't even make sense of the pictures in it. I learned to read by not reading, by not being able to read. We can make sense of nonsense by not being able to make sense of it, but sensing it nonetheless. We can make sense of the world (which is nonsense after all) by not being able to. That's where we begin to MAKE THINGS. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. I don't know a damn thing about J.L. Austin and it's been years and years and years since I have read a few Jane Austen novels. Joan Retallack's pretty cool, tho. You don't need a philosopher to tell you that words are complicated, that language is complex, a system of “compound collisions”. Just any dictionary and some time and patience. It isn't true that there is a lie inside believe. Throw out your televison programming. Throw out your tele-lie-vision. & & &
|
|
|
Post by vijaya on Jan 13, 2023 3:05:53 GMT -5
Bananas vs rulers: Reading about the history of measurement is fun. The earliest known methods use the human body and appears to be the cubit - the length of an average man's forearm from elbow to middle finger. Foot derives from an average man's foot. I love 'fathom' - the distance between an average man's outstretched arms. We know what the words are doing when we say, 'I measured my banana with a ruler.' We don't know what words are doing when we say 'I measured my ruler with a banana.' The implication, as I see it, being: What would my world look and be like if bananas were the standard for measurement, just like a ruler currently is? My height is 12 bananas and you are 3 bananas smaller than me! Woody Allen would have a field day. Looking within, I can see that my mind has been prompted to set aside its usual inclincation, for an analytical, cognitive approach, and is now enjoyably topsy turvy. It's early here in Australia and I am bound for my garden where some work needs to be done before the heat sets in. I shall measure my garden in bananas and see what comes of it. For a start, everything is looking very yellow! Laura, that earliest known method is still used by the flower sellers on the streets of South Indian cities and towns. Jasmine garlands are measured by these vendors from the inside of the elbow to middle finger. One of my aunts would grumble if the vendor was a short and small-boned boy. Enjoyed your post.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 20, 2023 20:51:10 GMT -5
“Where and what exactly is the surface of a cat?” > > Where and what exactly is “the surface of a cat”? What does this even mean? How many possible meanings are there? What kind of phrase is this? The surface of a cat is “where and what exactly”. Where and what precisely is the surface of a cat? What is a surface? Where to start? Paragraph Two, in which the ModPo Student expresses an opinion or two.
Every body is a different body. Every cat is a different cat. There is no cat. There is no cat and it has no opinion. It is not even astonished – not exactly. I can sense nonsense a mile away. I have no idea what I'm doing but I'm doing it. Morally speaking, Jane Austen's cat was the most cat-like cat in England. Precisely speaking, my dictionary is the most dictionary-like dictionary in South Carolina. SURFACE: Sur: over, super, on top of, above, up. Face: too many meanings to list here, but common enough. More importantly, derived from L facere, to make, to do and (see Do) Gk tithenai, to place, set. [Dare we look up make, place and set?] (As in How To Do Things With Words) As in poetry, poesis, poiesis – creation; or poet, poietes, poien, to make, create. Is Retallack overdoing it here? Can it BE overdone?? SURFACE: Overlook. Overrecognize. Overmake. Overdo. To rise up. To surface to the surface. Face the face. Turn and surface the music. Does J.L. refer to jail, and to The Prison-House of Language (Jameson)?? Or to jail as in cage, as in John? Does Jane refer to plain, as in plain Jane or Jane Doe (read Do) or plain sense? Does Austen/Austin refer to austere: somber, morally strict (watch your manners), sensible? SENSE: In what sense is sense a “mechanism of meaning”? Is meaning feeling? Is meaning perception? Can one smell rationality? In this section we will skip left over the science of Bananometry and get right to the tip.
Two of Al's questions, compounded: “In what way can “precisely” be distinguished from “exactly”?” “What is to be gained, if anything, from “the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense”?” Precisely everything, exactly nothing. Fresh better than frozen or rotten. I prefer my nonsense pre-cut. In the face of the blow, prior to the strike. Exacta: perfecta – opposite of errata, error? Exactations of Attention? Can you feel the nonsense, can you measure it? Ex-act. Out of act. From act. Former act. Forced. Forced Measurement. You can't force sense to make nonsense. This sentence makes no sense. Exalt the exact and excise the precipitate. In what way can “exactly” be astonished from “precisely”? What isn't sense that wasn't nonsense at one time? When I was three? I was reading my father's copy of Swift's Gulliver's Travels and I couldn't understand a word of it. When I was 1 year and 2 months, I couldn't even make sense of the pictures in it. I learned to read by not reading, by not being able to read. We can make sense of nonsense by not being able to make sense of it, but sensing it nonetheless. We can make sense of the world (which is nonsense after all) by not being able to. That's where we begin to MAKE THINGS. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. I don't know a damn thing about J.L. Austin and it's been years and years and years since I have read a few Jane Austen novels. Joan Retallack's pretty cool, tho. You don't need a philosopher to tell you that words are complicated, that language is complex, a system of “compound collisions”. Just any dictionary and some time and patience. It isn't true that there is a lie inside believe. Throw out your televison programming. Throw out your tele-lie-vision. & & & Jim, this is SO helpful to me. I understand now that you don't need to understand Retallack's points of reference, just the point that every word is ... [fill in the blank]. I love your definition of language, 'a system of "compound collisions"' and your launch off the Retallack piece. I don't wan't to throw out my tele-lie-vision, I accept the lie-mitations of my perspective and the collective lie-mitations of the groups I participate in, but seeing your delight and freedom almost makes me wanna. 'Is Retallack overdoing it here? Can it BE overdone??' And then you overdo it and reveal that not only would it be literally impossible to overdo it, it would also be undesirable as a way to live, as I think this would be a way to go mad or at least be quite annoying to your friends but an occasional dose of limitless pure consciousness is pretty cool -- and something I think you here rather than Retallack gave me a glimpse of, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 20, 2023 21:07:26 GMT -5
1. Why pair J.L. Austin and Jane Austen (a linguistic theoriest and a novelist)? 2. What is the field or area of rhetoric in the poem's writing? Consider this phrasing, for instance: "Thirdly, let us consider the question whether it is true that..." 3. In what way can "precisely" be distinguished from "exactly"? 4. What is to be gained, if anything, from "the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense"? Here's my initial take, framed by Al's questions on this densely whimsical and maybe quixotic piece : It's a very apt pairing Austin and Austen. Austin's interest in affect and performativity in everyday speech, and Austen's world, a world in which the the economic stability and hence the quality of life, the happiness of her female protagonists, depend so much on their comportment--a large part of it being what they say and how they say it as much as what they do. So with both authors, it's speech that is both affective and effective, the world of the marriage plot. There's definitely a playfulness to this work, the tongue-in-cheekness of the propositions, the way that foray into modal logic, the plight of the snow geese, leads to other strange passages ad absurdum, the bananas, that sudden sequence of dingbats proffered as libretto cum mathematical proposition. Maybe what Retallack is offering in these absurdities, this nonsense is the value of play, nonsense and insensibilities as a dialectic or critique of a pernicious kind of rationalism, maybe the kind of rationalism that spurred the dadaists. So that wordplay, slippages of meaning could potentially spur different here-to-fore unimaginable possibilities, the way the word lives on after the act of poesis as well as after death. Jason, yes, I have been writing essays for my work, and this touches on something Leah and maybe others have expressed -- I've noticed since engaging with this material that my mind has become more elastic and I'm interrogating my words more than I have before, I've become much less sure of my words and it's taken my writing to a higher level. So yes, 'wordplay, slippages of meaning could potentially spur different here-to-fore unimaginable possibilities', I am experiencing this. I mainly credit the engagement here, though. I could not have managed this material alone.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 20, 2023 21:10:44 GMT -5
The headnote to one of the sections talks about measuring a banana with a ruler, and then talks about measuring a ruler with bananas. What is the effect of this somewhat surprising reversal? And what does it have to do, if anything, with the idea of doing things with words? This makes me think of a caricature of a monkey holding a banana up to the world to try to make sense of it. The banana might be precisely 5 5/8 inches long but what exactly do you mean by that? I suppose a word is the measure of the thing in the world being described. But the thing in the world is what it is because of how we have measured it. It’s a tautology. ‘Referent’ derives from the Latin for ‘bringing back’. So, as the poet says I can’t claim any great precision for my method of measurement. I suppose she may be somehow ‘reclaiming’ the meaning. It’s easy to get tripped up when we peal back all these claims. 'It’s easy to get tripped up when we peal back all these claims.' hee hee
|
|
|
Post by jimlynch on Jan 21, 2023 0:14:33 GMT -5
“Where and what exactly is the surface of a cat?” > > Where and what exactly is “the surface of a cat”? What does this even mean? How many possible meanings are there? What kind of phrase is this? The surface of a cat is “where and what exactly”. Where and what precisely is the surface of a cat? What is a surface? Where to start? Paragraph Two, in which the ModPo Student expresses an opinion or two.
Every body is a different body. Every cat is a different cat. There is no cat. There is no cat and it has no opinion. It is not even astonished – not exactly. I can sense nonsense a mile away. I have no idea what I'm doing but I'm doing it. Morally speaking, Jane Austen's cat was the most cat-like cat in England. Precisely speaking, my dictionary is the most dictionary-like dictionary in South Carolina. SURFACE: Sur: over, super, on top of, above, up. Face: too many meanings to list here, but common enough. More importantly, derived from L facere, to make, to do and (see Do) Gk tithenai, to place, set. [Dare we look up make, place and set?] (As in How To Do Things With Words) As in poetry, poesis, poiesis – creation; or poet, poietes, poien, to make, create. Is Retallack overdoing it here? Can it BE overdone?? SURFACE: Overlook. Overrecognize. Overmake. Overdo. To rise up. To surface to the surface. Face the face. Turn and surface the music. Does J.L. refer to jail, and to The Prison-House of Language (Jameson)?? Or to jail as in cage, as in John? Does Jane refer to plain, as in plain Jane or Jane Doe (read Do) or plain sense? Does Austen/Austin refer to austere: somber, morally strict (watch your manners), sensible? SENSE: In what sense is sense a “mechanism of meaning”? Is meaning feeling? Is meaning perception? Can one smell rationality? In this section we will skip left over the science of Bananometry and get right to the tip.
Two of Al's questions, compounded: “In what way can “precisely” be distinguished from “exactly”?” “What is to be gained, if anything, from “the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense”?” Precisely everything, exactly nothing. Fresh better than frozen or rotten. I prefer my nonsense pre-cut. In the face of the blow, prior to the strike. Exacta: perfecta – opposite of errata, error? Exactations of Attention? Can you feel the nonsense, can you measure it? Ex-act. Out of act. From act. Former act. Forced. Forced Measurement. You can't force sense to make nonsense. This sentence makes no sense. Exalt the exact and excise the precipitate. In what way can “exactly” be astonished from “precisely”? What isn't sense that wasn't nonsense at one time? When I was three? I was reading my father's copy of Swift's Gulliver's Travels and I couldn't understand a word of it. When I was 1 year and 2 months, I couldn't even make sense of the pictures in it. I learned to read by not reading, by not being able to read. We can make sense of nonsense by not being able to make sense of it, but sensing it nonetheless. We can make sense of the world (which is nonsense after all) by not being able to. That's where we begin to MAKE THINGS. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. I don't know a damn thing about J.L. Austin and it's been years and years and years since I have read a few Jane Austen novels. Joan Retallack's pretty cool, tho. You don't need a philosopher to tell you that words are complicated, that language is complex, a system of “compound collisions”. Just any dictionary and some time and patience. It isn't true that there is a lie inside believe. Throw out your televison programming. Throw out your tele-lie-vision. & & & Jim, this is SO helpful to me. I understand now that you don't need to understand Retallack's points of reference, just the point that every word is ... [fill in the blank]. I love your definition of language, 'a system of "compound collisions"' and your launch off the Retallack piece. I don't wan't to throw out my tele-lie-vision, I accept the lie-mitations of my perspective and the collective lie-mitations of the groups I participate in, but seeing your delight and freedom almost makes me wanna. 'Is Retallack overdoing it here? Can it BE overdone??' And then you overdo it and reveal that not only would it be literally impossible to overdo it, it would also be undesirable as a way to live, as I think this would be a way to go mad or at least be quite annoying to your friends but an occasional dose of limitless pure consciousness is pretty cool -- and something I think you here rather than Retallack gave me a glimpse of, by the way. Exactly Cat! (and there's a cat in exact) How can one OVERcreate? Almost an oxymoron. By the long way, I still have my television, a Roku TV – there's a lot of great content on YouTube – and love the Criterion Channel. I borrowed the phrase “compound collision” from first section of R's “How To Do Things With Words” ad reapplied it in a slightly different context.
|
|
|
Post by cat mccredie on Jan 21, 2023 1:10:15 GMT -5
Jim, this is SO helpful to me. I understand now that you don't need to understand Retallack's points of reference, just the point that every word is ... [fill in the blank]. I love your definition of language, 'a system of "compound collisions"' and your launch off the Retallack piece. I don't wan't to throw out my tele-lie-vision, I accept the lie-mitations of my perspective and the collective lie-mitations of the groups I participate in, but seeing your delight and freedom almost makes me wanna. 'Is Retallack overdoing it here? Can it BE overdone??' And then you overdo it and reveal that not only would it be literally impossible to overdo it, it would also be undesirable as a way to live, as I think this would be a way to go mad or at least be quite annoying to your friends but an occasional dose of limitless pure consciousness is pretty cool -- and something I think you here rather than Retallack gave me a glimpse of, by the way. Exactly Cat! (and there's a cat in exact) How can one OVERcreate? Almost an oxymoron. By the long way, I still have my television, a Roku TV – there's a lot of great content on YouTube – and love the Criterion Channel. I borrowed the phrase “compound collision” from first section of R's “How To Do Things With Words” ad reapplied it in a slightly different context. Not to encourage product placement, but thank you for the tip-off about the Criterion Channel, there's a movie there I've tried forever to find!
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 25, 2023 4:24:53 GMT -5
“Where and what exactly is the surface of a cat?” > > Where and what exactly is “the surface of a cat”? What does this even mean? How many possible meanings are there? What kind of phrase is this? The surface of a cat is “where and what exactly”. Where and what precisely is the surface of a cat? What is a surface? Where to start?
Two of Al's questions, compounded: “In what way can “precisely” be distinguished from “exactly”?” “What is to be gained, if anything, from “the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense”?” You don't need a philosopher to tell you that words are complicated, that language is complex, a system of “compound collisions”. Just any dictionary and some time and patience. It isn't true that there is a lie inside believe. Throw out your televison programming. Throw out your tele-lie-vision. & & & Oh, I'm here so late! I've been puzzling over "The Poethical Wager" since January (and before) and whether it is poetry or is about poetry, and all of a sudden this entry popped into my mind (or what passes as my mind). The surface of a cat is furry and ill defined, constantly changing with the undulations of its growth and movement. Perhaps, like the cat, the boundaries of poetry are fuzzy. Not that it matters to the cat, it goes wherever it goes, and it does not care much for what we think is sensible. Or, as J. A. Wheeler might say, "Does poetry have hair?"
|
|
|
Post by Jim Lynch on Apr 26, 2023 0:33:14 GMT -5
“Where and what exactly is the surface of a cat?” > > Where and what exactly is “the surface of a cat”? What does this even mean? How many possible meanings are there? What kind of phrase is this? The surface of a cat is “where and what exactly”. Where and what precisely is the surface of a cat? What is a surface? Where to start?
Two of Al's questions, compounded: “In what way can “precisely” be distinguished from “exactly”?” “What is to be gained, if anything, from “the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense”?” You don't need a philosopher to tell you that words are complicated, that language is complex, a system of “compound collisions”. Just any dictionary and some time and patience. It isn't true that there is a lie inside believe. Throw out your televison programming. Throw out your tele-lie-vision. & & & Oh, I'm here so late! I've been puzzling over "The Poethical Wager" since January (and before) and whether it is poetry or is about poetry, and all of a sudden this entry popped into my mind (or what passes as my mind). The surface of a cat is furry and ill defined, constantly changing with the undulations of its growth and movement. Perhaps, like the cat, the boundaries of poetry are fuzzy. Not that it matters to the cat, it goes wherever it goes, and it does not care much for what we think is sensible. Or, as J. A. Wheeler might say, "Does poetry have hair?" Yes Martin, certainly hair, and air and chairs and error and medieval fairs and hares and bears raised straight up in fear (awe)!
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on May 3, 2023 14:33:04 GMT -5
Hello, Jim. I see you wrote on this thread a week or such ago. Just greetings and thanks for your part in several SloPos this winter. Just finishing the Hank Lazer SloPo. I've enjoyed them all, but missed your voice on the last couple. All the best.
|
|
|
Post by jimlynch on Jun 16, 2023 22:54:56 GMT -5
Hello, Jim. I see you wrote on this thread a week or such ago. Just greetings and thanks for your part in several SloPos this winter. Just finishing the Hank Lazer SloPo. I've enjoyed them all, but missed your voice on the last couple. All the best. Hey Paul! Just saw this when posting intro in new forum tonight - great to see you on Zoom call, sure we'll meet this fall in various office hours - and wished I could have stuck around for the last two SloPo's but wasn't possible. Maybe I'll see you in in the new forum over the summer - or on Cousera forums if I can ever make my way back there through my backlog of work!
|
|