Random thoughts today because I want to get this entry out of the way and work on my dissertation on the evolution of intelligence, or try to do so, since I’m still not out of my null zone, unless I’m slightly out but having trouble keeping from falling back into it.
First, two new Grummanisms: “utilinguist” and “alphasemanticry.” The first is my antonym for a previous coinage of mine, “nullinguist,” for linguist out to make language useless; ergo, a utilinguist is a linguist out to make language useful. By trying to prevent “poetry” from meaning no more than “anything somebody thinks suggests language concerns” instead meaning, to begin with, “something constructed of words,” before getting much more detailed, for example.
“Alphasemanticry” is my word for what”poetry” should mean if the nullinguists win: “highest use of language.” From whence, “Visual Alphasemanticry” for a combination of graphics and words yielding significant aesthetic pleasure that is simultaneously verbal and visual.”
I popped off today against one of Frost’s “dark” poems, or maybe it is a passage from one of them: “. . . A man can’t speak of his own child that’s dead”–the kind academics bring up to show Frost was Important, after all. “Wow,” I said, “Wow, he confronts death! He must be major! “ I then added, “Frost is in my top ten all-time best poets in English that I’ve read but not for his Learic Poems.”
James Finnegan then corrected me, stating (I believe) that the poem didn’t confront death but showed its effects. I replied, “Okay, a poem about the effect of death on two people. What I would call a wisdom poem. I’m biased against them. I like poems that enlarge my world, not ones that repeat sentiment about what’s wrong with it, or difficult about it. Frost knew a lot about reg’lar folks, but I never learned anything from him about them that I didn’t already know. In other words, I’m also somewhat biased against people-centered poems. But mostly, I don’t go to poems to learn, I go to them for pleasure.”
I would add that I’m an elitist, believing with Aristotle that the hero of a tragedy needs to be of great consequence, although I disagree with him that political leaders are that, and I would add that narrative literature of any kind requires either a hero or an anti-hero (like Falstaff) of great consequence.
I’m not big on poems of consolation, either.
I find that when I have to make too trips on my bike in a day, it zaps me. I don’t get physically tired, I just even less feel like doing anything productive than usual. Today was such a day. A little while ago i got home from a trip to my very nice dentist, who cemented a crown of mine that had come out (after 24 years) back in for no charge, and a stop-off at a CVS drugstore to buy $15 worth of stuff and get $4 off. I actually bought $18 worth of stuff, a gallon of milk and goodies, including a can of cashews, cookies, candy, crackers . . . Living it up. Oh, I did buy cereal with dried berries in it, too.
My other trip was to the tennis courts where I played two sets, my side winning both–because of my partners. I’m not terrific at my best, and have been hobbled by my hip problem for over a year. It may be getting slightly better, though–today I ran after balls a few times instead of hopped-along after them. I’m still hoping I’ll get enough better to put in at least one season playing my best. Eventually, I’m sure I’ll need a hip replacement but there’s a chance I won’t have to immediately.
I’ve continued my piece on the evolution of intelligence, but not done anything on it today. now fairly confidentI have a plausible model of the most primitive form of memory, and its advance from a cell’s remembering that event x followed action a and proved worth making happen again to a cell’s remember a chain of actions and the result. That’s all that our memory does, but it’s a good deal more sophi- sticated. I think I can show how primitive memory evolved to become what my theory says it now, but won’t know until I write it all down. (It’s amazing how trying to write down a theory for the first time exposes its shortcomings.) If I can present a plausible description of my theory’s memory, it will be a good endorsement of it. No, what is much more true is that if I am not able to come up with a plausible description, it will indicate that my theory is probably invalid.