Archive for June, 2010

Entry 150 — More Discussion with Gregory

Saturday, June 19th, 2010

Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino and I are continuing our discussion about mathematical poetry at his blog. Below is the reply I made to his latest comment (with a little minor editing), him in regular type, me in italics:

You say you are “speaking of the set of language-objects used to represent the real world and that you and I differ in what those objects are.”

Would you explain that, please. And, by “language objects” do you mean words and symbols? Are numbers language objects? Are the names we call numbers by language objects?

The things used to express oneself with language: words, punctuation marks, numerals, whatever things like ampersands are called, square root symbols, etc.  Numbers if you mean numerals–that is, written numbers.  But there are also the numbers in the environment the words for numbers, and numerals, represent.

You say, “poets can be ungrammatical and not wrong but logicians, using words, can’t. You’re just finding users of language who use certain rules and ignore others, and other users whose use and non-use is different.” Would you explain that, please.

All great animals are male.  George is a green animal.  Therefore George is male.  Those are a logical statements.  They have to be grammatical.  Mathematicians similarly have to abide by their rules–their “grammatical” rules if you want to call them that.  Actually, anyone using words has to be reasonably grammatical in order to communicate.

A point of difference between “math grammar” and poetry grammar is that in the case of poetry grammar we can be ungrammatical and still be poetical — and not only that, we can still be meaningful — while if we are “mathematically ungrammatical” we then fall into error. I wish you had addressed this more fully.

I’m afraid I don’t see how I could have discussed it more fully.  I’m saying so what if a poet can be ungrammatical and still be meaningful, and a mathematician can’t.  A logician can’t, either.  I’m saying different specialists use different parts of the grammar of a language, and use it with different degrees of rigor.  Actually, I would say that poetry grammar is specialized grammar and that poets don’t break the rules when they break schoolroom grammatical rules.

I wonder:

Is the correctness of math but a matter of the correctness of “grammar”?

Is the correctness of math but a matter of the correctness of operation (of application of operational principle)?

I don’t know.  I don’t see what this has to do with your definition of mathematical poetry.

(Axiomatical?)

When I write math I am “doing” math. (So to be “mathematically ungrammatical” would apply here.)

When I read math I am “doing” math. (How could it apply here? Or does it: what if I don’t know the rules?)

Sorry, Gregory, dunno where you’re going.

So according to you “mathematical poetry” is a sub-category of “visio-textual art”?

I can’t imagine where you get that.

According to me, “mathematical poetry” is a sub-category of poetry.  It has

no more connection to visio-textual art than to music.

Sometimes you make up your own terms (“texteme”) and other times you use common terms or combining forms like “visio” and “textual.”

Why don’t you use, for example, “semanteme,” “sememe,” “morpheme,” “phoneme” and so on?

I try to use the available terms I know.  I believe there is no term for what I mean by “texteme.”  I’m not understanding why you are bringing this up.

You say, “no analogy need be involved.” How then do your math poems work, how do they signify, how do they function? Or are they, in the end, just pictures? (Visio-textual pictures.)

When I said no analogy need be involved, I meant–as the context, I think, makes clear–an analogy between the “mathematical sentence” and the “linguistic sentence.”  My mathematical sentences don’t act LIKE linguistic sentences, they ARE linguistic sentences.  Or so I claim, and that’s why I (at this point) don’t fully accept your definition of mathematical poems.

My mathematical poems work, signify, function just like any poem: they provide a reader with words and symbols (and sometimes other elements, when, for example, they are also visual poems) which the reader decodes just as he would a conventional poem.

How would you describe the grammar of your math poems?

One side of an equation has to equal the other.  I don’t know.  Some of my math poems use verbal grammar.  The “grammar” of mathematics is very simple, for the most part–at the mostly sub-calculus level of my math poems.  You follow algebraic rules like multiply both x and y by z in the expression z(x + y).  These rules, for me, are just an extension of “normal” grammatical rules, like putting an adjective next to the noun it modifies, using a pronoun in such a way as to make clear what its referent is, etc.  I don’t think of them as I use them.

My brain may not be working well, which may be why I’m having a little trouble following what you’re saying here and there.  (My doctor thinks I may be anemic.  It’s being checked.  In the meantime, I’m using that as my excuse.)

all best, Bob

Entry 149 — Considering What Numbers Ultimately Are

Friday, June 18th, 2010

Talking about mathematics with Gregory has gotten me wondering confusedly about the ultimate stimuli of mathematics, so I thought I’d spend a little time in this entry trying to get a start on that.  I think it begins with a brain’s awareness of “one” and “more than one.”  My guess right now is that this depends on a fairly sophisticated mechanism or set of mechanisms in the brain that notify the brain’s owner (in a manner of speaking) of a repeated stimulus–a dot in the environment, say.  As the eye scans what’s out there, it sees dotX1 when the eye is looking in direction A, so records the sighting as dotX1/A in the pre-visual awareness, and in the repetition-center, but only as dotX1 in the latter.  If  the eye then sees dotX1 (i.e., not really dotX1 but a twin of it) when the eye is looking in direction B, a record of  dotX1/B will go into the pre-visual awareness.  Meanwhile, the nervous system will try to record dotX1 again in the repetition-center, but fail, because the m-cells activated by the dot’s twin are still active.   Sensory-cells sensitive to such a failed attempt to activate will reflexively cause a tag meaning “two dotX1s” to be added to the person’s record of the moment.  Or some such operation will be carried out.

Result: the person experiences the visual perception of dotX1 at A and at B, and a numerical feeling of twoness related to dotX1, or a feeling of 2 times dotX1.  This, I should think, would come about fairly early in the evolution of animals, probably long before mammals evolved.  And it could easily be auditory, too–except the same sound in two close-together moments rather than in the same visual space.

With the coming of speech, true elementary numeracy would have begun, with the splitting off of twoness from particular dots or the like,  abetted by language in ways I’ve shown using my theory of knowlecular psychology (I hope) for similar epistemologic events.

Obviously, a sense of threeness and higher numericalnesses would evolved the same was the sense of twoness did–but not get two high due to the law of diminishing returns.  Once there were words for twoness (and oneness) and higher quantities (hey, I’m talking about quantification here, I just now realize), arithmetic and high mathematics would have developed.

I think I can give just-so stories for most of them, but not today.

My conclusion, I think, is that “asensual” numbers exist “out there.”  We can sense quantities without feeling their material.

I would add that numerals and words for numbers like “seven” are all part of our verbal language.

Odd thought I had: the sounds representing for numbers and colors I just realized all stay the same as adjectives.  “Cold,” too.  There are others.  It makes intuitive sense to me that all the colors and numbers would do this, but I can’t make rational sense of it yet.

Entry 148 — Response to Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino, Part 2

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

You say, “The ‘mathematical poem,’ if it is to be, or to contain, poetry, must have some poetic elements, as well as some formal symbols and operations of math.”

I don’t understand why you have, “if it is to be, or to contain, poetry.” If you call it a poem, claim I, you are saying that it is a poem, so much have poetic elements, however defined. That such a poem should have “some formal symbols and operations of math,” follows from its being called a “mathematical poem.” Ergo, I would rephrase your definition as “A mathematical poem is a poem containing mathematical elements.”

I would then ask you to say what you mean by “having” mathematical operations in a mathematical poem. That is, would a poem about a child who has to do five long division problems for homework “have” a mathematical operation in it?

Also, to be fastidious, I would want you to spell out whether the symbols and operations should be overtly in the poem. Some, as you probably know, seem to think a sonnet is a mathematical poem because the poet has to be able to count up to 14 to make one.

Which leads to the next important thing I think needs to be done: sort out all the kinds of math-related poems it seems reasonable to distinguish from one another. I would list the following five:

(1) poems that discuss math

(2) poems generated by mathematical operations.

(3) poems that use mathematical symbols but use them unmathematically: e.g., a poem with a square root sign next to the word “Sunday,” which is followed by seven plus-signs, whereupon the poem becomes standard verbal expression.

(4) poems that one or more persons claim arouse some kind of “mathematical feeling.”

(5) poems that perform one or more mathematical operation central to its aesthetic meaning.

Entry 147 — Post Awaiting Content

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Amazing how little I’m posting to this blog of mine of late.  It’s been a full week since my last post; I thought only a couple of days had gone by.

Entry 146 — Discussing Mathematics and Poetry

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino has been blogging about mathematics and poetry at his Eratio blog.  When he told me about it on the phone yesterday,  I said I’d check it out, which I’ve now done.  I left my first comment on it.  Fortunately, for once I cut what I said before hitting the button telling his blog to accept it, for my post got rejected.  I’ll try in a little while to post it again.  Meanwhile I want to post it here, to make sure it’s somewhere, and because maybe one of my two regular visitors doesn’t also read Gregory, or misses posts to it because it’s irregular, which is my excuse.

Hi, Gregory.  I’ve decided to tear into your commentary on mathematics and poetry Very Slowly, one idea at a time, to facilitate coherence.

I’ll begin with your statement that “Already (‘mathematical sentence’) (you’re) thinking analogically.”

This is where you and I first disagree, for (as revealed in our long & interesting phone conversation of yesterday) I believe numerals and mathematical symbols are part of our verbal language, just as, in my opinion, typographical symbols for punctuation or to abbreviate are.  The mathematical symbol, “+,” for instance, is just a different way of writing, “plus,” or “&.”  It therefore follows that for me, a mathematical equation is a literal sentence differing from unmathematical sentences only in the words in it.  “a – b = c,” for instance, is a very simple sentence and not significantly different from, “Mary cried when she lost her lamb.”

Obviously, it’s just a case of your opinion versus mine, but I think acceptance of my opinion makes more sense, because it keeps thing more simple than your does.  I would say that what most people mean by “words” are “general words,” while words like “sineA” or “=” are “specialized words” or mathematical words–like punctuation marks.

I think in my linguistics, these “words” are all called “textemes,” But it’s been a while since I read Grumman on the matter, so I’m not sure.

Hey, I found a glossary in which I define many terms like “texteme.”  It’s not a word but a typographical symbol: “any textual symbol, or unified combination of textual symbols–letters, punctuation marks, spaces, etc.–that is smaller than a syllable of two or more letters: e.g., ‘g,’ ‘&h(7:kk,’ ‘GH,’ ‘jd.’”  I coined the term for discussion of various odd kinds of symbols and symbol-combinations like some of those among my examples that not infrequently occur in visual or infraverbal poems.

So, I don’t have a special term for word, as I define it.  Yet.

To continue my argument in favor of my take on mathematical expression as an extension of verbal expression, not something different in kind, I would saimply ask what is special about mathematical symbols that should require us to think of them as elements of a special kind of expression?  They do nothing that ordinary verbalization can’t do, although they do it more clearly, compactly and elegantly.

Graphs would be mathematical expression–a form of visio-conceptual expression, as is written music.  Chemical diagrams but not chemical notation. . . .

I don’t see that there’s any difference between the syntax of mathematical expression (other than graphs and probably other similar things I’m not into Math enough to think of right now) and normal verbal expression.  There’s no inflection, I don’t think, in mathematical expression.  Which is a triviality.

Conclusion: we need a carefully formed taxonomy of human modes of expression.

Entry 145 — Poetry as a Profession

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Is there any profession that pays as little as poetry?

Is there any profession that scorns its most adventurous practitioners as much as poetry?

Entry 144 — Visual Poetry as a Serious Occupation

Friday, June 11th, 2010

I’m still in the null zone but will try to answer an important question for people starting out as visual poets who want to know how to get somewhere in the field, in whatever manner–because I often think about this, have written about it many times (albeit only semi-effectively), and was asked by someone about it recently.

First of all, I need to admit that I’ve never come close to figuring out the answer to the question brought up by most would-be poets or artists of any kind, which is, “How do I make it as a visual poet?” meaning–usually–how do I get the reputation I merit, and possibly some financial reward for my visual poetry?

(Those of you who are well-enough off–probably as a tenured English professor–to be above money concerns, and in are satisfied with the esteem of those in your literary clique–need not read further.)

My preliminary answer: I have absolutely no idea despite having been a Serious Poet (i.e., a published poet) for forty, and a Serious Visual Poet for thirty years.  I have gotten a reputation as a visual poet, but only among other visual poets, and who knows how much they value my work.  Even in the minute world of poetry-as-a-whole, I remain close to unknown.  I’ve never gotten any kind of award for poetry, or paid more than a few dollars for a poem except for two framed, hangable poems–i.e., as a visual artist.

To continue discussing myself–because I think it the easiest way to answer the question, I began as a playwright.  Not getting anywhere in that field, and always having been a sometime poet of sorts, I thought it’d be much easier to break into poetry than into playwriting, and that perhaps I could establish myself as a poet, which should heop me be taken seriously as a playwright.  That’s LESSON NUMBER ONE: start at the bottom, poetry and short-story-writing seeming to me the bottom because poems and short stories are the easiest things to get published.

Among the easiest poems to get published in 1970 were haiku.  I’d always liked them, and had some on hand, so tried them on a few haiku magazine publishers.  LESSON NUMBER TWO is get a copy of the Dustbooks Directory of Small Presses.  Look up the publishers of your kind of poetry, buy copies of their magazines, and send work to the ones whose selections you like.  LESSON NUMBER THREE, is try to get into a correspondence with some of the editors of magazines you like.  Starting with a fan letter, preferably a sincere one, will help.  That’s something I did.  As a result, one haiku editor sent me comments on my rejected haiku, including suggestions for improvement.  I followed her suggestions, mostly agreeing with them, until established enough to go my own way when I thought I should.

Eventually, I found the addresses of a few publishers of concrete poetry, and started corresponding with the editor of one, sending him not poems but criticism of some poetry in his magazine.  We hit it off.  He asked for more essays.  At length, I tried some visual poems on him.  Meanwhile, he gave me the name and address of another visual poetry publisher.  I got into a good correspondence with him, too, but couldn’t break into his magazine for two or three years.  Both of these guys told me about others in the field, so I was soon corresponding with quite a few visual poets, many of whom also were editor/publishers.  I then went to a gathering of visual poets.  After that, I was an established visual poet.  In the BigWorld, that meant nothing, though.

Oh, I also early on started my own press, having been able to buy a Xerox with money a grandmother had left me.  I published a lot of stuff, which no doubt helped me make friends although I did it–really–because I wanted to get deserving things in print no other publisher would publish.

I still don’t understand why no visual poet has made it big, meaning gotten a reputation and access to money like Robert Haas, say.  Several people have made money from visual poetry–Jenny Holzer, for one–but as visual artists not visual poets (and with mostly poor work).

Anyway, I kept internetting.  One of my friends in the field had enough clout to help me get paying gigs as a critic once or twice, and into a reference book he edited; another got me into the Gale Contemporary Authors Autobiographical Essays series.

In the mid-nineties, I became active on the Internet, and got a few gigs all on my own by responding to announcements of exhibitions, anthologies, reference books needing entries.

Exhibitions.  For visual poets, that is important.  I’ve been in a few exhibitions, mainly because I knew the right people–fellow visual poets who were able to set up group shows.  It all boils down to INTERNETTING.  There are always mail art shows going on, too, that it’s worth contributing to if you’re more prolific than I.  They get the name around.

Now that the Internet is here, one should use it as much as possible.  Having a blog is inexpensive, and worthwhile for all kinds of reasons.  A few people may go to it.  The only poem of mine that ever got into a textbook (where it was mislabeled a visual poem) was seen at my blog.  (I was supposed to be paid with a copy of the textbook, but the creeps never sent me a copy or replied to my queries about the matter.)

A blog can also give you writing exercise, and let you try out rough drafts.

You might also join poetry discussion groups like Spidertangle, which is primarily for visual poets.  Good for internetting, for news of anthologies and shows, etc.

I’ve also tried local poetry readings and met some nice people, but haven’t furthered my career, at all.  I’ve found it a waste of time trying for grants like the Guggenheim.  No visual poet I know has gotten one for his poetry.  John M. Bennett managed for a few years to get a grant for his magazine, Lost & Found Times.  Canadians have made out pretty well with government grants, one of them getting two grants, one for himself as himself and one for himself under one of his many pseudonyms.

Of course, I’ve no doubt made things difficult for myself by being as combative as I’ve been in many of my essays, and posts to discussion groups.   I don’t believe in astrology but like to say I’m a victim of Moon in Aries, which makes me that way.  I’m a natural pop-off artist.  I do control myself much of the time, and am also naturally able to make fun of myself, so aren’t as loathed as I might otherwise be.  I actually thought that being outrageous might help me, as it has others.   It hasn’t.  Possibly because I’m often on everybody’s wrong side.  For instance, a vocifeorous believer in the value of visual poetry, which offends conventional poets, while also a vocifeous believer that textual designage is not visual poetry, which offends most visual poets.

Note: I’m much less aware of the current scene now than I was ten years ago.  I’m to the point where I’m more concerned with finishing Important Projects of mine than getting anywhere socio-economically.  I rarely publish anything anywhere but here at my blog–unless solicited by a friend.

I don’t think I’ve said much but can’t right now think of anything to add.  I hope what I’ve said is useful to someone.  I’ll be glad to answer any questions.  I’d particular like to hear from people with other ideas on how to get ahead.

Oh, and yes, it’s quite possible that one will get ahead automatically if one’s work is good enough.  Mine may not be.  However, I can’t accept that the entire field of visual poetry is deservedly as marginal as it’s been since ints inception–at least in the United States. In many South American countries and perhaps elsewhere, it seems to be taken much more seriously.

Entry 143 — Taxonomical Update

Friday, June 11th, 2010

I toppled back into my null zone a couple of days ago.  Don’t feel like writin’ nuttin’ but have something too important not to make public right now.  It has to do with my recent taxonomy.  I want to add that “propaganda” is now a rank under “Sociodominance,” and “information” a rank under “Utilitry.”  I want also to put “war” and  “politics” under “Sociodominance,” and add “play” to my Phylum.

“Play,” by the way, breaks down into “games” and “pretense.”  “Games” I define as activities without connection to any other member sharing the category “games” is in whose participants follow rules and pursue some goal the attainment of which is considered victory.  I can’t remember the details of Wittgenstein’s demonstration that “games” could not be defined, but believe I have definied it.  Metaphoric use, or misuse of the term notwithstanding.   “Pretense” is unserious participation in any of the activities in my Phylum, by “unserious,” meaning that no knowledgeable person would consider the activity to be in any significant way the “real thing”–children playing house, for instance.

I also have a new long division mathemaku to bring to the world’s attention.  I won’t even draw it, it’s so lame: actual salt (glued to the page) divided into “NaCl” gives you “naming” with a subdividend product ot “salt” and a remainder of “science.”  This is lame because it’s just the statement of an opinion, to wit: “By naming the real substance, salt, you get the word, “salt,” which is equal, when “science” is added to it, to was salt esentially is, which, it is implied, is more than what it is as a substance.   The only reason I bother to post the poem at all is because it reverses the standard belief that real things are more than the words for them.  For me, words are more than their referents.

Entry 142 — Notes on Yesterday’s Entry

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

Here’s yesterday’s entry again, with explanatory notes added in Italics:

.

Anthrocentric Reality

It’s up to each individual taxonomist what he wants to classify.  In this case,  it was the universe we human beings are at the center of–and there is such a universe.  I had at first thought to taxonomize all of reality, but gave up after all the problems I ran into–for instance,
What to do with biological taxonomy, which takes many ranks to get down to where I more or less start.

.


Universe: Matter

Other Universe Member: Mind

Yes, Children, the universe consists of two things, mind and matter (or matter/energy).  But there are two ways of saying this: one is to say the two are two things; the other is to say the two are two aspects of one thing.  The meaning of each way of putting it is identical.  (I assume that mind and matter are inseparable since a universe of mind not in contact with matter in some way would be empty, and for all practical matters non-existent.)
.

Domain: Life

Other Domain Member: Non-Life

.

Kingdom: Human Life

Other Kingdom Member: Non-Human Life

.

Phylum: Mentascendancy

Other Phylum Members: Survival, Utilitry, Reproduction, Sociodominance

By “mentascendancy,” I mean basically the pursuit of meaningfulness.  Utilitry is the endeavor to make survival easier and more secure–medicine, roadmaking, farming . . .  Sociodominance my bias against politics causes me to consider not a form of mentascendancy; it’s a combination of most human beings’ need to either tell others what to do or be told what to do.  (Warmaking, incidentally, can be either a form of sociodominance or of utilitry–or a combination of both.)

.

Class: Art

Other Class Members: Verosophy, Religion

Verosophy is the search for significant truths.  So is Religion my bias against religion caused me to make verosophy the use of reason and one’s senses in the search for significant truths, and religion the use of reason and one’s sense’s and faith in things beyond reason and one’s senses in the search for significant truths.

.

Order: Literature

Other Order Members: Visimagery, Music, Viscerexpression

“Visimagery” is my term for visual art; by “viscerexpression,” I mean all forms of giving sensual pleasure other than literature, music and visimagery, such as cooking (where it is not a form of utilitry), perfume-making, and so on

.

Family: Poetry

Other Family Member: Prose

.

Genus: Plurexpressive Poetry

Other Genus Member: Linguexpressive Poetry

“Plurexpressive” is a shortening of “plurally expressive,” “linguexpressive” of “linguistically expressive.”

.

Species: Visual Poetry

Other Species Members: Sound Poetry, Mathematical Poetry, Performance Poetry, Others

I’ll need help with the other members of this species, such as cyber poetry.


Entry 141 — The Location of the Species, Visual Poetry

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

.
.
Anthrocentric Reality


Universe: Matter

Other Universe Member: Mind
.

Domain: Life

Other Domain Member: Non-Life

.

Kingdom: Human Life

Other Kingdom Member: Non-Human Life

.

Phylum: Mentascendancy

Other Phylum Members: Survival, Utilitry, Reproduction, Sociodominance

.

Class: Art

Other Class Members:  Verosophy, Religion

.

Order: Literature

Other Order Members: Visimagery, Music, Viscerexpression

.

Family: Poetry

Other Family Member: Prose

.

Genus: Plurexpressive Poetry

Other Genus Member: Linguexpressive Poetry

.

Species:  Visual Poetry

Other Species Members: Sound Poetry, Mathematical Poetry, Performance Poetry, Others

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *