- Oswald answered the question posed the first time round - then it was asked again - her description was original and creative - especially the ending where a good poem connects in the in between reading or inquiring or searching space - Oswald is amazing - i follow all her lectures -
Oswald's distinction between the harp and the flute in her intro to Thunder Mutters seems relevant. Poets of the harp find their truth in the world, as Ramakrishnan posits scientists do, whereas poets of the flute blow out their interiority. Makes sense that Oswald, a poet of the harp, would see herself as kindred to a scientist
Reductionism played a significant role for my discovery and invention from the age of 58 to 64 years. The age is definitely unusual for creativity, but it happened for me because of my intention and persistence. I am now willing to be laid back and Chugh along as you said.
I now believe Alice is a stone fox (having just applied that term to Christine (Perfect) McVie of Fleetwood Mac). I now intend to ask JLF International (should they exist) why they are allowing me to troll one of their pages. (Don't worry, Ravi, I'll get back to you.) Roger
Decoding Creativity was a difficult (and perhaps impossible) conversation. I see it as a noble attempt to connect poetry and science without exaggerating their connection. But given Venki Ramakrishnan's strict materialist bias, the emblematic language and perspective of poetry (i.e., of the Humanities) was disturbingly devalued. To speak of “the poet” and “the scientist” as fixed categories empties the terms of meaning. Both poetry and science are concerned with observations and judgements using working methods that are particular to their realms of inquiry. There is a shared direction; but I think it is, in practice, more a shared ethic than a shared methodology or set of intentions. It is philosophy, or at least traditional philosophy, that dares (or dreams) to posit broad general statements about “truth.” For contemporary scientists to think that the explanation of human cognition rests with an analysis of nerve-synapse patterns seems foolhardy to me. Neuroscience offers important tools for medical practice and for science in general. But it does not offer an explanation of consciousness, and it has nothing to say about poetry. (I am trying, with partial success, to write with humility as I criticize a Nobel laureate.) I recommend Alice Oswald’s fine presentation of Ted Hughes’s poetry, which is distributed on UA-cam. Without the blinder of dogmatic materialism imposed on her, she spoke with wonderful eloquence and insight. In other words, she spoke as a poet presenting poetry in all its specificity and complex metaphoric power.
Fuck me dead. I've just discovered JLF is the Jaipur Literature Festival. That explains a lot. You really are BA Calcutta (Failed) (1066 and All That). Don't blame me. It is foolish to venture online if you do not anticipate the reaction in your little, mud-brick villages. C'mon, I have no sympathy. Do better.
Obviously, I'm gonna get deleted. But I've had a drink and cannot resist: Is there anyone here (apart from Alice the Fox and Lady in Pink Dress) who is not BA Calcutta (Failed)?
- Oswald answered the question posed the first time round - then it was asked again - her description was original and creative - especially the ending where a good poem connects in the in between reading or inquiring or searching space - Oswald is amazing - i follow all her lectures -
Oswald's distinction between the harp and the flute in her intro to Thunder Mutters seems relevant. Poets of the harp find their truth in the world, as Ramakrishnan posits scientists do, whereas poets of the flute blow out their interiority. Makes sense that Oswald, a poet of the harp, would see herself as kindred to a scientist
Is there anywhere online where I could read this intro?
@@benmclaren Buy the book. It's worth it.
Reductionism played a significant role for my discovery and invention from the age of 58 to 64 years. The age is definitely unusual for creativity, but it happened for me because of my intention and persistence. I am now willing to be laid back and Chugh along as you said.
No shit, Ravi. Perhaps you would have more credibility if your English was slightly better: i.e. intelligible.
Who is the babe in the pink dress with the floral and chain pattern? Now that got my full attention.
An involved person is mostly in metaphysical state of mind.
How true, how true, Ravi. My state of mind is mostly metaphysical. But ... how can we be sure that my mind exists at all? Discuss.
I now believe Alice is a stone fox (having just applied that term to Christine (Perfect) McVie of Fleetwood Mac). I now intend to ask JLF International (should they exist) why they are allowing me to troll one of their pages. (Don't worry, Ravi, I'll get back to you.) Roger
Religion is also created based on truth seeking of human nature.
No shit, Ravi! Why has no one thought of that before? Although what you say is barely intelligible. I hope you're not an academic.
Alice's ending poetry is hard to grasp for me.
Please explain (30 minutes.) Do not write on both sides of the examination paper at once.
At least not as hard to grasp as her ass, eh, Ravi?
Decoding Creativity was a difficult (and perhaps impossible) conversation. I see it as a noble attempt to connect poetry and science without exaggerating their connection. But given Venki Ramakrishnan's strict materialist bias, the emblematic language and perspective of poetry (i.e., of the Humanities) was disturbingly devalued. To speak of “the poet” and “the scientist” as fixed categories empties the terms of meaning. Both poetry and science are concerned with observations and judgements using working methods that are particular to their realms of inquiry. There is a shared direction; but I think it is, in practice, more a shared ethic than a shared methodology or set of intentions. It is philosophy, or at least traditional philosophy, that dares (or dreams) to posit broad general statements about “truth.” For contemporary scientists to think that the explanation of human cognition rests with an analysis of nerve-synapse patterns seems foolhardy to me. Neuroscience offers important tools for medical practice and for science in general. But it does not offer an explanation of consciousness, and it has nothing to say about poetry. (I am trying, with partial success, to write with humility as I criticize a Nobel laureate.) I recommend Alice Oswald’s fine presentation of Ted Hughes’s poetry, which is distributed on UA-cam. Without the blinder of dogmatic materialism imposed on her, she spoke with wonderful eloquence and insight. In other words, she spoke as a poet presenting poetry in all its specificity and complex metaphoric power.
Sorry, Michael. What a load of bollocks.
Fuck me dead. I've just discovered JLF is the Jaipur Literature Festival. That explains a lot. You really are BA Calcutta (Failed) (1066 and All That). Don't blame me. It is foolish to venture online if you do not anticipate the reaction in your little, mud-brick villages. C'mon, I have no sympathy. Do better.
Obviously, I'm gonna get deleted. But I've had a drink and cannot resist: Is there anyone here (apart from Alice the Fox and Lady in Pink Dress) who is not BA Calcutta (Failed)?
As an homunculus myself, I have been instructed by the World Federation of Homunculi to say that this guy is talking shit.
I still think Alice is a fox. Ted Hughes.