If you have read any of my poetry, you know I am engaged in a project to transform the language into one that can facilitate a more accurate understanding and description of the world. Existing grammars not only constrain vision and understanding, they distort and tend to polarize reality. Thus my project.
It has had many names. It was first dubbed Stevespell by a friendly critic, at a time when the main thrust was to normalize English spelling. As it evolved and I began to focus on grammar and new modes of thinking and describing, I started calling it Stevetok. But more recently I am inclined to think of it as meta-English, and "standard" English as "old English."
Recently, as I began work on turning Bouk 3 of The Song ov Elmallahz Kumming into an ebook, I discovered that a couple of other authors had worked on the same underlying text, the Sumerian Nin-me-sar-ra text, that lies beneath my Bouk 3. One of those authors is Bill Sigler, who has written a notable re-translation.
We began a conversation, and I sent him links to my poem and some short essays on meta-English. What follows are some comments Bill made, which were very gratifying. I don't think anyone else has understood so clearly what I'm doing:
I appreciate the hat tip on your lucid yet wide-ranging linguistics
pieces. The poetics are intriguing, the idealism familiar. ... Still, call me weird, but I think "Blak Fiyer on Jennettek Fiyer"
explicates the whole thing so beautifully and perfectly, without trying
to patiently shine the pearls in the swine's ass. Your essays call to
mind a more sober Finnegan's Wake, but your poems are something else
entirely, like those filters that turn music into pure sound and break
up the hegemony of melody and harmony. In other words, because word
meanings are so intangible, the implications need to enigmatized for the
sake of the holy transportation away from mind into spirit through the
word. Few have been called for such work, fewer are chosen. I for one
honor that you've created and maintained this reality in the face of
Blakean odds. It does not need more justification, in my view, only more
time ( from me and others). I haven't had much chance to delve in much
yet, but nothing I've seen yet would discourage that. I will get to it
in my own way, and will undoubtedly report back. For now I'll just say
the Sumerian tree of life is on the edges of our existence, waiting to
be found...
Thanks Bill! You can find Bill's poetry and ideas at:
http://billsigler.blogspot.com/ and other sites (check his profile).
His translations of the Nin-me-sar-ra are at:
http://billsigler.blogspot.com/search?q=Nin-me-sar-ra
Showing posts with label linguistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label linguistics. Show all posts
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
My writing career, briefly
My writing career spans forty years. From one perspective I am developing a Jewish and kabbalistic vision of the world, the mind, and the soul. From another perspective, I am composing long narrative poems that explore the clash between the real and the ideal, in the lives of historical figures and people I have known. From yet a third perspective, I am developing a new, more versatile language in which the complexity and multi-dimensionality of quantum mechanics is carved into the lens of language itself.
Or let me put it this way: I have spent the last 40 years writing poetry that re-visions and re-models not just the world we live in, but the language with which we see, describe, and understand that world. In the process I have created a new grammar to represent the fundamental indeterminacies at the horizons of thought. This has been a slow process requiring much persistence, not only because of its own inherent difficulties, but because of the difficulties it creates for readers, who have a challenging enough job deciphering the experiments and non-linearities of modern and post-modern writing. The result, though a challenge to many readers, allows my work to achieve layered and faceted perspectives that a traditional use of language inherently prohibits.
It seems that I am almost alone in spearheading the development of a language that can reflect and express the nature of quantum mechanics, both in physics and in consciousness. But I am not entirely alone. In 1980 David Bohm, the renowned physicist, published his last book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. It is about the need to develop a new language in response to quantum mechanics! In 1980 I was already six years into my project to recreate English.
Or let me put it this way: I have spent the last 40 years writing poetry that re-visions and re-models not just the world we live in, but the language with which we see, describe, and understand that world. In the process I have created a new grammar to represent the fundamental indeterminacies at the horizons of thought. This has been a slow process requiring much persistence, not only because of its own inherent difficulties, but because of the difficulties it creates for readers, who have a challenging enough job deciphering the experiments and non-linearities of modern and post-modern writing. The result, though a challenge to many readers, allows my work to achieve layered and faceted perspectives that a traditional use of language inherently prohibits.
It seems that I am almost alone in spearheading the development of a language that can reflect and express the nature of quantum mechanics, both in physics and in consciousness. But I am not entirely alone. In 1980 David Bohm, the renowned physicist, published his last book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. It is about the need to develop a new language in response to quantum mechanics! In 1980 I was already six years into my project to recreate English.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Rethinking Grammar
I was sitting on the bus going to work, annotating George K. Anderson's The Legend of the Wandering Jew. My mind drifted away from the text, to my act of annotation, and from there to the grammatical form of the word “annotation.” It's a simple word, a noun. And of course, a noun is a person, place, thing, state, or quality; or more fully, as most dictionaries will remind you, the subject or object of a sentence that can be modified into plural and possessive. But that definition hardly begins to describe the grammatical function that the word “annotation” implies.
Consider. It's root is “note”, , which can be either a noun or a verb, but in this case I'll call it a noun. However, by adding the prefix “an-” it is transformed into a verb, which is thence retransformed back into a noun with the suffix “-tion”! Those ambiguities and transformations all are processed instantly by our minds, and are equally instantly ignored as we read a sentence with the word “annotation” in it.
Now, I ask you, is “annotation” a noun, and if so, what is a noun?!
The more I explore stevespell, the more I realize that the apparently strange and foreign grammars and constructions embedded in it, such as noun-verbs like “annotaten”, are neither strange nor foreign. We simply choose to ignore the complexity that already exists in the language. In actuality, like the quantum mechanical electron, our words are constantly changing forms and states, and we are hard-pressed to know when they're particles and when they're waves and when they're something else entirely.
Of course, back here in the real world, my 7th grade English teacher, Mrs. Newton, will wag her crooked finger in my face and scold me with nary a second thought, “I'll have none of that, young man! A noun is a noun, and you better be able to diagram it correctly on the next test, or you'll be back in the corner sitting by yourself again!”
Another thing Mrs. Newton doesn't know: I like sitting by myself.
Consider. It's root is “note”, , which can be either a noun or a verb, but in this case I'll call it a noun. However, by adding the prefix “an-” it is transformed into a verb, which is thence retransformed back into a noun with the suffix “-tion”! Those ambiguities and transformations all are processed instantly by our minds, and are equally instantly ignored as we read a sentence with the word “annotation” in it.
Now, I ask you, is “annotation” a noun, and if so, what is a noun?!
The more I explore stevespell, the more I realize that the apparently strange and foreign grammars and constructions embedded in it, such as noun-verbs like “annotaten”, are neither strange nor foreign. We simply choose to ignore the complexity that already exists in the language. In actuality, like the quantum mechanical electron, our words are constantly changing forms and states, and we are hard-pressed to know when they're particles and when they're waves and when they're something else entirely.
Of course, back here in the real world, my 7th grade English teacher, Mrs. Newton, will wag her crooked finger in my face and scold me with nary a second thought, “I'll have none of that, young man! A noun is a noun, and you better be able to diagram it correctly on the next test, or you'll be back in the corner sitting by yourself again!”
Another thing Mrs. Newton doesn't know: I like sitting by myself.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
revision to "Judgement in the Divine Court", 2
As I mentioned in my previous post, here is the first normspell translation of the poem, II. Juj Men in the Divvine Korten. Really, normspell and stevespell are old terms that don’t do justice to the transformation of language going on in my current poetry. I am not merely altering words and grammar and spelling for their own effect. I am composing, in one text, multiple statements with divergent meanings embedded into each other.
I am not aware that anyone else is doing anything even remotely similar in English. I do not say that with arrogance. What I am doing may be a total waste of your time. Even so, my experience in writing it has a unique and elevating quality to it. It seems to be forcing me to understand the world in an entirely new way.
You know that “new way.” You’ve heard it a thousand times before, but not quite like this. We must learn to see the world from multiple perspectives. But I’m not saying that we merely need to see the multiplicity. We must integrate those perspectives, allowing mutual admissibility, not just of what is compatible, but of what is contradictory. I am not talking about juxtaposition. Juxtaposition does not require integration. Nor does it require moral judgment. We juxtapose and we pick and choose. We juxtapose and we become relativists.
I am talking about formulating an intellectual and spiritual foundation for a diverse society, that is able to draw the borders between acceptable individualism, and the depredations of extremism. To achieve this, we must restructure the way we think. It is not enough to be well-read. Bigots can be well-read. It is not enough to be open-minded. Naive fools can be open-minded. We must see broadly, and then process what we see in a more integrated and critical/self-critical fashion.
I offer this writing as a possible model. Perhaps it is a good one; perhaps not. Well, what of it? But if Western society does not succeed in this venture, the great experiment of democracy and individualism will fail. And the likes of the 10 men in Mumbai that murdered hundreds will usher in our new world.
II. Judgement of our Divine Courtship
From their heavenly realms the Prophets of the Ancient of Days
Observe the worlds that they have bestirred.
Moses and his sanhedrin of disciples sit;
They, the human generation of Adonai.
From Yehoshua and Shmuel to Ezra and Malachi
Their court dictates through Israel, God’s beloved.
Tremulous, the people try to obey,
But even though their Soul is of the Messiah,
Its presence whispers so nebulously,
And this earth is so brash. What can they hear?
Accept Israel for the sake of unity,
And their word will extinguish the interfering worlds!
And into visionary fields, fallow and fertile,
In scorn, men went from the Temple to plow;
These two in caustic soil up to their teeth:
Jesus, his lone and enchanting voice,
Bits of abstract tales in a language unknown.
But his minions imagine his words are clear,
That he speaks a language that corresponds to what they hear.
They trample and stampede in their dreamlike hearing,
But when they will wake, they won’t believe a word.
From his tome of God-war comes the echos of Muhammed
Repenting. Hear his terrible groans,
His twisting and shaking from hate-full wisdom:
“By my faith I have bred a house of pollution.
“My book is a plan to build warrens of hate.
“The jihad verses see a world so corrupt –
“What a dim view of the holy Soul.
“To carve into my children a realm of peace,*
*“Dar el Islam”
“Behold the bloody knife that I bear!
“Islam itself is the Dar el Harb.*
*”region of war”
“To my Lord I have drawn them in brutish garb.”
Muhammed has turned his back on the soul
Of his generations. Till their will is broken,
He will intercede, that their work will fail.
I am not aware that anyone else is doing anything even remotely similar in English. I do not say that with arrogance. What I am doing may be a total waste of your time. Even so, my experience in writing it has a unique and elevating quality to it. It seems to be forcing me to understand the world in an entirely new way.
You know that “new way.” You’ve heard it a thousand times before, but not quite like this. We must learn to see the world from multiple perspectives. But I’m not saying that we merely need to see the multiplicity. We must integrate those perspectives, allowing mutual admissibility, not just of what is compatible, but of what is contradictory. I am not talking about juxtaposition. Juxtaposition does not require integration. Nor does it require moral judgment. We juxtapose and we pick and choose. We juxtapose and we become relativists.
I am talking about formulating an intellectual and spiritual foundation for a diverse society, that is able to draw the borders between acceptable individualism, and the depredations of extremism. To achieve this, we must restructure the way we think. It is not enough to be well-read. Bigots can be well-read. It is not enough to be open-minded. Naive fools can be open-minded. We must see broadly, and then process what we see in a more integrated and critical/self-critical fashion.
I offer this writing as a possible model. Perhaps it is a good one; perhaps not. Well, what of it? But if Western society does not succeed in this venture, the great experiment of democracy and individualism will fail. And the likes of the 10 men in Mumbai that murdered hundreds will usher in our new world.
II. Judgement of our Divine Courtship
From their heavenly realms the Prophets of the Ancient of Days
Observe the worlds that they have bestirred.
Moses and his sanhedrin of disciples sit;
They, the human generation of Adonai.
From Yehoshua and Shmuel to Ezra and Malachi
Their court dictates through Israel, God’s beloved.
Tremulous, the people try to obey,
But even though their Soul is of the Messiah,
Its presence whispers so nebulously,
And this earth is so brash. What can they hear?
Accept Israel for the sake of unity,
And their word will extinguish the interfering worlds!
And into visionary fields, fallow and fertile,
In scorn, men went from the Temple to plow;
These two in caustic soil up to their teeth:
Jesus, his lone and enchanting voice,
Bits of abstract tales in a language unknown.
But his minions imagine his words are clear,
That he speaks a language that corresponds to what they hear.
They trample and stampede in their dreamlike hearing,
But when they will wake, they won’t believe a word.
From his tome of God-war comes the echos of Muhammed
Repenting. Hear his terrible groans,
His twisting and shaking from hate-full wisdom:
“By my faith I have bred a house of pollution.
“My book is a plan to build warrens of hate.
“The jihad verses see a world so corrupt –
“What a dim view of the holy Soul.
“To carve into my children a realm of peace,*
*“Dar el Islam”
“Behold the bloody knife that I bear!
“Islam itself is the Dar el Harb.*
*”region of war”
“To my Lord I have drawn them in brutish garb.”
Muhammed has turned his back on the soul
Of his generations. Till their will is broken,
He will intercede, that their work will fail.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
new work for Pardaes Dokkumen, 2
As promised, here is my first translation (normspell version) of I. Tranzskripten the Divvine Kort, posted on 11/10/08. This is not just simply the same poem, spelled “normally,” since many of the words in the original, stevespell version have no simple corollary in standard English. They are words presenting a fusion of multiple words and ideas, or they are noun-verbs, a grammatical form that embodies both object and action at the same time. Thus, in this translation, I try to capture one interpretive version of the poem. You will see, when I post my second translation, another interpreted version. Superimposed, the 2 translations will approach the stevespell original.
I. Transcriptions of the Divine Court
From heaven the Souls of those awaiting
The great Tekoun,* prepare themselves * Repair/Redemption
With prayer and meditation. When their courage arises,
They approach the Throne of the Lord.
Present they evidence of their clarity,
Their conclusion being:
“I am ready to descend and instill God’s will.”
Each Soul that would live as a Jew declares,
“I am as a Messiah. All my will is to redeem...”
And thus descend they, and after 8 days there
Cry out to their Parent, “circumcise, circumcise,
“For this is will be Your writing on me as Messiah.”
Oh their sadness and sorrow as they confront the marble walls
Of this inflexible psyche that embodies the Soul.
And those Souls that would live as Christians, cry they out,
“I take upon my psyche the yoke of the Lord
“To understand heaven in the ways of the earth.”
Ah, their tears at all that they forget
When they experience earth’s resistance to knowledge.
And those Souls that would live as Muslims, they cry out,
“Send me down to the warrens of the spirit,
“To the slums on earth, harlots and thugs.
“There I'll enforce compassion and peace.”
Promptly they abandon their promise to the Lord,
To revel in those warrens, angry and cruel.
I. Transcriptions of the Divine Court
From heaven the Souls of those awaiting
The great Tekoun,* prepare themselves * Repair/Redemption
With prayer and meditation. When their courage arises,
They approach the Throne of the Lord.
Present they evidence of their clarity,
Their conclusion being:
“I am ready to descend and instill God’s will.”
Each Soul that would live as a Jew declares,
“I am as a Messiah. All my will is to redeem...”
And thus descend they, and after 8 days there
Cry out to their Parent, “circumcise, circumcise,
“For this is will be Your writing on me as Messiah.”
Oh their sadness and sorrow as they confront the marble walls
Of this inflexible psyche that embodies the Soul.
And those Souls that would live as Christians, cry they out,
“I take upon my psyche the yoke of the Lord
“To understand heaven in the ways of the earth.”
Ah, their tears at all that they forget
When they experience earth’s resistance to knowledge.
And those Souls that would live as Muslims, they cry out,
“Send me down to the warrens of the spirit,
“To the slums on earth, harlots and thugs.
“There I'll enforce compassion and peace.”
Promptly they abandon their promise to the Lord,
To revel in those warrens, angry and cruel.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Blog talk (blogtok) and stevespell
In September of 2004 my very good friend, and Shivvetee webmaster, Steven Toleikis, had the following brilliant insight. He wrote:
Was reading the paper ystrdy 'bout blogs. (If by some small chance you don't know what they are see: http://www.blogger.com )
They were going on about how they're changing how people communicate, report on news, yadda, yadda and how they also seem to be leading to an evolution in ........ SPELLING! Bingo - I thought, the perfect arena to use SteveSpell! Whatdoyouthink. It might just catch on!
My response:
Well, blogtalk (blogtok?) has definitely caught on. Both my 19 and 9 year olds are teaching me new "words," acronyms, and abbreviations all the time. Perhaps it will indeed open a door of acceptance for stevespell. In that case, stevespell might take on the status of the (dare I say) priestly and "high" form of the language, while blogtok will be the cockney or bronx dialect (or "dialects" assuming the evolution of variants). On the other hand, perhaps blogtok, as the organic form that is evolving in a communal arena, will ultimately become the canonical form, while stevespell will be rejected as a contrived and academic aberration.
There are some important similarities in the origins of blogtok and stevespell, that's for sure. I began with the dual impetuses of normalizing English and breaking open its grammar to allow the infusion of new rhythmic and conceptual energy. Blogtok seems to have a similar, tho less articulated dual impetus: to speed up (and maybe also normalize) spelling, and to allow, or promote, an "individualized" voice (or more accurately, a counter-cultural voice, since there's nothing terribly individual about it). Not so different, eh? Blogtok has the virtue of being organic, grass roots, and interactively evolving. Stevespell has the virtue of being more conceptually articulated and purposeful in its evolutions.
I'd like to say that this proves that popular culture (blogtok) follows art (stevespell). Or more personally, "see, I told you so!" But given how well-known I am (burn!), I think this really suggests something quite different: that both art and popular culture originate (and bifurcate) from the same sources. Artists may hear it or see it or feel it first, but they don't create it. They just try to represent it.
Now a question for you, Steven. Are you suggesting I do something to promote stevespell in the blogtok arena??? If so, please enlighten me to the opportunities and venues.
Note from 8/2006:
It took me 2 years to get enlightened and create this blog, but here I am blogging tokking on my bloggie tokkee.
Was reading the paper ystrdy 'bout blogs. (If by some small chance you don't know what they are see: http://www.blogger.com )
They were going on about how they're changing how people communicate, report on news, yadda, yadda and how they also seem to be leading to an evolution in ........ SPELLING! Bingo - I thought, the perfect arena to use SteveSpell! Whatdoyouthink. It might just catch on!
My response:
Well, blogtalk (blogtok?) has definitely caught on. Both my 19 and 9 year olds are teaching me new "words," acronyms, and abbreviations all the time. Perhaps it will indeed open a door of acceptance for stevespell. In that case, stevespell might take on the status of the (dare I say) priestly and "high" form of the language, while blogtok will be the cockney or bronx dialect (or "dialects" assuming the evolution of variants). On the other hand, perhaps blogtok, as the organic form that is evolving in a communal arena, will ultimately become the canonical form, while stevespell will be rejected as a contrived and academic aberration.
There are some important similarities in the origins of blogtok and stevespell, that's for sure. I began with the dual impetuses of normalizing English and breaking open its grammar to allow the infusion of new rhythmic and conceptual energy. Blogtok seems to have a similar, tho less articulated dual impetus: to speed up (and maybe also normalize) spelling, and to allow, or promote, an "individualized" voice (or more accurately, a counter-cultural voice, since there's nothing terribly individual about it). Not so different, eh? Blogtok has the virtue of being organic, grass roots, and interactively evolving. Stevespell has the virtue of being more conceptually articulated and purposeful in its evolutions.
I'd like to say that this proves that popular culture (blogtok) follows art (stevespell). Or more personally, "see, I told you so!"
Now a question for you, Steven. Are you suggesting I do something to promote stevespell in the blogtok arena??? If so, please enlighten me to the opportunities and venues.
Note from 8/2006:
It took me 2 years to get enlightened and create this blog, but here I am blogging tokking on my bloggie tokkee.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Crinkled words on crinkled paper
I recently found this scribbled on the back of a sheet of paper, buried in a pile on my desk. I don't know what I think of it. Still pretty crinkled, for sure, but maybe something to salvage.
Blak Fiyer on Jennettek Fiyer
We ar the holee riets ov Uddoniy.
Hem riet us in twisten lienz ov karben grammerz,
So unlike the werdenz frum us tokken sperets,
Grammerz so innert an fixt.
The Divvine werd ar liv a chaenjen,
Evolver sowndenz in reflekt uppon themsel.
I iz a werd it tranzform its oen meen
Tu a hiyer levelz or mor frakterd korz.
I am a fraze, I kan begin in a kursen
And end in a blesser a praer.
I wuz wuns an iddeyum, heer missunderstanden,
And thare, inkomprehensel. Pure verben.
I am wuz the riten by a Divvine Hand
That will forj a nu helix in the hiperleenken Torah.
Blak Fiyer on Jennettek Fiyer
We ar the holee riets ov Uddoniy.
Hem riet us in twisten lienz ov karben grammerz,
So unlike the werdenz frum us tokken sperets,
Grammerz so innert an fixt.
The Divvine werd ar liv a chaenjen,
Evolver sowndenz in reflekt uppon themsel.
I iz a werd it tranzform its oen meen
Tu a hiyer levelz or mor frakterd korz.
I am a fraze, I kan begin in a kursen
And end in a blesser a praer.
I wuz wuns an iddeyum, heer missunderstanden,
And thare, inkomprehensel. Pure verben.
I am wuz the riten by a Divvine Hand
That will forj a nu helix in the hiperleenken Torah.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Literary Complexity and its Antithesis, Ambiguity
This relatively short essay is part of an on-going series of musings concerning language in the service of clearer and more insightful modes of thought. The interested reader who is, as yet, unfamiliar with my poetry and my program to restructure English, might want to read the following, to put this essay in context. I would suggest beginning with:
Why I Rite So Funnee [Feb 13, 2010 on this blog].
This essay is also on my website, which contains a number of book-length poems, plus some of my art and manuscripts.
Then I would search this blog for the following posts:
A docent’s tour of my poetry, Part 1. [July 10, 2006]
Part 2 of a docent's tour of my poetry. [July 10, 2006]
The definitive function of true art. [August 29, 2006]
Musings on a Non-linear Narrative Poetics. [July 20, 2006]
RE: the poem: Guerden ov Addomz (see 10/26/06) [November 10, 2006]
So...
There are many ways to be accurate in thinking and writing. A marvelous statement on “traditional” understandings about literary accuracy can be found in Richard Moore’s essay, “Seven Types of Accuracy” in his book The Rule that Liberates. However, we have made enormous gains in science that are not reflected in our arts, and especially in poetry. Our language and our use of language have not kept pace with our ability to See. We still measure the accuracy of language by our ability to say one thing clearly, unambiguously.
Sadly for the traditionalists, we have passed beyond a world of one dimension. We realize (or must realize) now, that we live in a highly superimposed world. There are many ways of seeing, many ways of feeling, many ways of knowing, all coexisting, each with its own particular value. There are many competing, and often co-equal truths, that point to a higher truth or truths. An educated, and more importantly, an ethical individual must become aware of them all. This is the job of literature in this era. We must implement these ways of thinking, and not merely theorize about them.
To this end, in my poetry I sacrifice accuracy in one dimension (one level of meaning) to gain accuracy in multiple dimensions (multiple levels of meaning). For some people it makes my writing too difficult to penetrate. I truly regret this, but I will persist in my vision. Perhaps if I explain how it works (how I think and compose), I might be able to make my poetry a bit more approachable. What follows are two common examples of superimposed meanings that can be found in my writing. The first involves modifications of spelling. The second involves modifications of grammar and verb tense, as well as spelling.
On September 25, 2006, you can find a poem entitled “Kinder, Prepare Yurselz.” We will go no further than the title, which contains two variant spellings representing superimposed ideas. The first is the word “Kinder,” which is intended to have two meanings: 1) “to be more compassionate,” which, if I didn’t intend a second meaning, I would have spelled “kiender” to indicate the long “i” in pronunciation, and 2) “children,” from the German and Yiddish. The second variant in spelling that signals multiple meanings is “Yurselz.” The word refers directly to the word “yourselves,” but I have substituted “-selz” for “-selves” to show that this is not simply a psychological process related to the self, but a process that must penetrate all the way into our bodies, into our cells. We children must prepare ourselves profoundly, physically and mentally. And we must prepare ourselves to be kinder, more compassionate. I could delve further into the implications, but I hope that gives a sufficient taste.
The second example can be found on November 2, 2006, in the poem “Plowmen with Taelz.” In the second stanza I write:
"I meet a plowman a reternen frum feelz.
"He will say, ‘For jennerratenz I am plow this expanz.
‘My lingz ar groen frum its oxxide dust.
There’s a lot going on here! We have the clashing present tense of “meet” with the future tense of “will say.” I did this for a number of reasons. The simplest is that often our experiences are not understood until much later, so that what we hear now, we will re-hear differently in the future. Secondly, time is purely a function of consciousness. I have come to believe that past, present, and future all coexist, but our experience is limited, as Blake says, “by our senses five... which are the inlets to the Soul in this age.” “For jenneratenz I am plow” suggests another aspect of the time-consciousness unity. The moment of consciousness in this statement spans generations. Such a claim has important implications, both for the definition of “self,” and for our understanding of how experience and belief are culturally transmitted. Finally, “lingz ar groen” is fraught with meaning. “Lingz” are both “lungs” and “languages” and “groen” is both “grown” and “groan.” And all the possible combinations of meanings coexist and amplify each other.
Understanding how I write may not make reading my poetry any easier, but perhaps you may be comforted to know that there’s reason, purpose, and intention in it. Perhaps it is only cold comfort.
However, I think it is very important to make this distinction: what I’m trying to do is the opposite of what I see as an overwhelming tendency in modern poetry, that is, the creating of intentional ambiguity, the purpose of which is to create the illusion of deeper meaning(s) without the author’s intentionality of what that meaning is. We know this kind of ambiguity creates merely an illusion of depth, because a byword of modern poetics is that “the reader must create the meaning,” thus absolving the author of that responsibility. I reject this perspective entirely. It is the author’s job to create meaning, and to convey it clearly.
Now, the search for multi-dimensional accuracy is not a matter of (mere) rationalism and logic. Often the choices one makes are intuitive, or based on feeling and sensuality. Depending on the author’s success, the accuracy and richness of the language may be deteriorated or amplified. The author is guided, to one degree or another, by personal, transpersonal, and/or transcendent (dare I say Divine) knowledge, and the literary outcome is dependent on the quality, authority, and genuineness of that knowledge.
In pursuit of the scientific method, modern language has evolved to strip ambiguity, at the cost of reduction in levels of meaning. English has been the leader in this enterprise, thereby becoming enormously powerful (and by the way, a highly intimidating carrier of dangerous culture to those who resist this process). I have tried to break the mold of English, not as an act of resistence, but in an effort to regain complexity of knowledge and efficiency of expression, while holding onto accuracy of language. This is not a strange or unique or aberrant goal. Mathematical notation epitomizes this process. One need only read a modern physics text (say Feynman, who speaks to expert and layman alike) to experience the efficient complexity of thought embedded in mathematical language.
In sum, our art and language have the ability to evolve, and to evolve us, into higher levels of consciousness, but that requires new kinds of language and language tools. Failing that, our art will remain mired in Aristotelian one-dimensionality, and we will, with impotent romanticism, look back on the literature of “ancient” languages, such as Hebrew/Arabic and Sanskrit, as the last bastions of holy ambiguity.
Why I Rite So Funnee [Feb 13, 2010 on this blog].
This essay is also on my website, which contains a number of book-length poems, plus some of my art and manuscripts.
Then I would search this blog for the following posts:
A docent’s tour of my poetry, Part 1. [July 10, 2006]
Part 2 of a docent's tour of my poetry. [July 10, 2006]
The definitive function of true art. [August 29, 2006]
Musings on a Non-linear Narrative Poetics. [July 20, 2006]
RE: the poem: Guerden ov Addomz (see 10/26/06) [November 10, 2006]
So...
There are many ways to be accurate in thinking and writing. A marvelous statement on “traditional” understandings about literary accuracy can be found in Richard Moore’s essay, “Seven Types of Accuracy” in his book The Rule that Liberates. However, we have made enormous gains in science that are not reflected in our arts, and especially in poetry. Our language and our use of language have not kept pace with our ability to See. We still measure the accuracy of language by our ability to say one thing clearly, unambiguously.
Sadly for the traditionalists, we have passed beyond a world of one dimension. We realize (or must realize) now, that we live in a highly superimposed world. There are many ways of seeing, many ways of feeling, many ways of knowing, all coexisting, each with its own particular value. There are many competing, and often co-equal truths, that point to a higher truth or truths. An educated, and more importantly, an ethical individual must become aware of them all. This is the job of literature in this era. We must implement these ways of thinking, and not merely theorize about them.
To this end, in my poetry I sacrifice accuracy in one dimension (one level of meaning) to gain accuracy in multiple dimensions (multiple levels of meaning). For some people it makes my writing too difficult to penetrate. I truly regret this, but I will persist in my vision. Perhaps if I explain how it works (how I think and compose), I might be able to make my poetry a bit more approachable. What follows are two common examples of superimposed meanings that can be found in my writing. The first involves modifications of spelling. The second involves modifications of grammar and verb tense, as well as spelling.
On September 25, 2006, you can find a poem entitled “Kinder, Prepare Yurselz.” We will go no further than the title, which contains two variant spellings representing superimposed ideas. The first is the word “Kinder,” which is intended to have two meanings: 1) “to be more compassionate,” which, if I didn’t intend a second meaning, I would have spelled “kiender” to indicate the long “i” in pronunciation, and 2) “children,” from the German and Yiddish. The second variant in spelling that signals multiple meanings is “Yurselz.” The word refers directly to the word “yourselves,” but I have substituted “-selz” for “-selves” to show that this is not simply a psychological process related to the self, but a process that must penetrate all the way into our bodies, into our cells. We children must prepare ourselves profoundly, physically and mentally. And we must prepare ourselves to be kinder, more compassionate. I could delve further into the implications, but I hope that gives a sufficient taste.
The second example can be found on November 2, 2006, in the poem “Plowmen with Taelz.” In the second stanza I write:
"I meet a plowman a reternen frum feelz.
"He will say, ‘For jennerratenz I am plow this expanz.
‘My lingz ar groen frum its oxxide dust.
There’s a lot going on here! We have the clashing present tense of “meet” with the future tense of “will say.” I did this for a number of reasons. The simplest is that often our experiences are not understood until much later, so that what we hear now, we will re-hear differently in the future. Secondly, time is purely a function of consciousness. I have come to believe that past, present, and future all coexist, but our experience is limited, as Blake says, “by our senses five... which are the inlets to the Soul in this age.” “For jenneratenz I am plow” suggests another aspect of the time-consciousness unity. The moment of consciousness in this statement spans generations. Such a claim has important implications, both for the definition of “self,” and for our understanding of how experience and belief are culturally transmitted. Finally, “lingz ar groen” is fraught with meaning. “Lingz” are both “lungs” and “languages” and “groen” is both “grown” and “groan.” And all the possible combinations of meanings coexist and amplify each other.
Understanding how I write may not make reading my poetry any easier, but perhaps you may be comforted to know that there’s reason, purpose, and intention in it. Perhaps it is only cold comfort.
However, I think it is very important to make this distinction: what I’m trying to do is the opposite of what I see as an overwhelming tendency in modern poetry, that is, the creating of intentional ambiguity, the purpose of which is to create the illusion of deeper meaning(s) without the author’s intentionality of what that meaning is. We know this kind of ambiguity creates merely an illusion of depth, because a byword of modern poetics is that “the reader must create the meaning,” thus absolving the author of that responsibility. I reject this perspective entirely. It is the author’s job to create meaning, and to convey it clearly.
Now, the search for multi-dimensional accuracy is not a matter of (mere) rationalism and logic. Often the choices one makes are intuitive, or based on feeling and sensuality. Depending on the author’s success, the accuracy and richness of the language may be deteriorated or amplified. The author is guided, to one degree or another, by personal, transpersonal, and/or transcendent (dare I say Divine) knowledge, and the literary outcome is dependent on the quality, authority, and genuineness of that knowledge.
In pursuit of the scientific method, modern language has evolved to strip ambiguity, at the cost of reduction in levels of meaning. English has been the leader in this enterprise, thereby becoming enormously powerful (and by the way, a highly intimidating carrier of dangerous culture to those who resist this process). I have tried to break the mold of English, not as an act of resistence, but in an effort to regain complexity of knowledge and efficiency of expression, while holding onto accuracy of language. This is not a strange or unique or aberrant goal. Mathematical notation epitomizes this process. One need only read a modern physics text (say Feynman, who speaks to expert and layman alike) to experience the efficient complexity of thought embedded in mathematical language.
In sum, our art and language have the ability to evolve, and to evolve us, into higher levels of consciousness, but that requires new kinds of language and language tools. Failing that, our art will remain mired in Aristotelian one-dimensionality, and we will, with impotent romanticism, look back on the literature of “ancient” languages, such as Hebrew/Arabic and Sanskrit, as the last bastions of holy ambiguity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
