Entry 89 — IQ, EQ and CQ « POETICKS

Entry 89 — IQ, EQ and CQ

I’m taking a break from Of Manywhere-at-Once to reveal my latest coinages, PQ and CQ, or psycheffectiveness quotient and creativity quotient.  I’ve long held that IQ is a ridiculously pseudo pseudo synonym for intelligence.  “Pychefficiency” is an old term of mine for “genuine intelligence.”  A slightly new thought of mine is that PQ equals IQ times CQ divided by 100.  So an average person’s PQ would be 100 times 100 divided by 100, or 100.  The most common Mensa member’s PQ would be 150 times 50 divided by 100, or 75.

Okay, mean-spirited hyperbole.  But there definitely are a lot of stupid high IQ persons, and it is the stupid high IQ persons that gravitate toward Mensa membership.  (Right, I’m not in Mensa–but I could be, assuming my IQ hasn’t shrunk much more over the years than my height, which is down a little over half an inch.)

My formula wouldn’t come too close to determining a person’s true PQ because IQ is so badly figured, but it would come at least twice as close to doing so as IQ by itself.  A main change necessary to make the formula a reasonable measure of mental effectiveness would be to divide it into short-term IQ and long-term IQ.   The former is what IQ currently (poorly) is–i.e., something that can be measured in a day or less.  The latter would be IQ it would take a year (or, really, a lifetime, to measure).  Quickness at accurately solving easy problems versus ability to solve hard problems.

Really to get IQ right one would have to measure the many kinds of intelligence there are such as social intelligence, aesthetic intelligence, athletic intelligence, self intelligence and so forth, then add them together, find the mean score thus obtained for human beings.  Divide that by a hundred and use the answer to divide a given intelligence sum to find true IQ.

Maybe not “true IQ,” but “roundedness quotient.”  For me, true IQ would be all the intelligences multiplied together divided by the product of one less than the number of intelligences and 100.  That, on second thought, wouldn’t do it, I don’t think.  What I want is a reflection of the strength of all one’s cerebral aptitudes without penalty for absent talents since it doesn’t seem to be that they’d be too much of a handicap.  I’m in an area now I need to think more about.  So here will I close.

Tags:

2 Responses to “Entry 89 — IQ, EQ and CQ”

  1. Bob says:

    Roundedness is wonderful, and fitting in is fabulous. However, genius doesn’t require either to create or postulate.

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    As I said, roundedness is something I need to think about more. I, of course, am not implying that genius requires it but suggesting that
    the higher one’s roundedness quotient is, the more effective one will
    likely be at creating or postulating–although one’s creativity quotient
    would outweigh it, as would a true intelligence quotient, which would
    measure much more than short-term numeracy and literacy and the mental manipulation of geometric shapes and whatever else most IQ tests measure.

    This response is late, by the way, because I didn’t know I got your comment till today (due to my ignorance about how this site handles comments).

    Later Note, 4 August 2011: is there anyone more stupid than the person who enters a discussion only to make an assertion (anonymously, of course), then disappears?

    –Bob

Leave a Reply

Entry 17 — Knowlecular Poetics, Part 1 « POETICKS

Entry 17 — Knowlecular Poetics, Part 1

Today, #621 in its entirety because I’m too tapped out to do anything more:

14 October 2005: Eventually, neurophysiology will be the basis of all theories of poetics. My own central (unoriginal) belief that metaphor is at the center of (almost) all the best poetry is neurophysiological, finally, for it assumes that the best poems happen in two (or more) separate brain areas, one activated by an equaphor (or metaphor or metaphor-like text), the other (or others) by the equaphor’s referents. Manywhere-at-Once. Neurophysi-ologists may even now be able to test this idea–although not with much finesse. Their instruments are too crude to determine anything definitively, but could certainly determine enough to be suggestively for or against my idea.

I believe, by the way, that the few good non-equa-phorical poems get most of their punch due to their evasion of metaphor. That is, those experiencing them get pleasure from the unexpected absence of metaphor or nything approximating mataphor. It may even be that such poems cause those experiencing to experience anywhere-at-Once by activating two separate brain areas–one of them empty! (A kind of “praecisio” for Geof Huth to consider.) The pay-off would be a feeling of image-as-sufficient-in-itself.Be that as it may, I brought this subject up–well, I brought it up because I couldn’t think of anything else to discuss today. But I wanted to begin considering visual poetry neurophysiologically, something I haven’t before, that I know of. Recently, I’ve been trying, in particular, to distinguish visual poetry from illustrated poetry in terms of my knowlecular psychology, which is entirely neurophysiological (although the neuorophysiology is hypothetical). I’ve been having trouble. I believe I have a beginning, though. It is that an illustrated poem, like some of William Blake’s, put a person experiencing them in a verbal area of his mind first, and then into a visual area of his mind. The text activates his verbal area, the illustration his visual area–at about the same time that his verbal area activates some of the cells in the portion of his visual area activated by the illustration. This results in a satisfying completion that enhances the pleasurable effect of the poem.

A classical visual poem–a poem, that is, that everyone would consider a visual poem–will put a person experiencing it in a verbal area of his mind and a visual area of his mind at the same time. Because the text and the illustration will be the same thing.

The activated visual area will cause (minor) pain, because not expected–that is, it will be due to textual elements used in unfamiliar ways, or graphic elements jammed into texts in unfamiliar ways. If successful, the poem’s verbal content will secondarily activate some of the cells in the portion of the subject’s visual area the visual elements did–to result in the same kind of saisfaction the illustrated poem resulted in, except faster (the precipitating experiences not being consecutive but simultaneous), and with more unfamiliarity resolved, a plus in my theory of aesthetics.

Apologies if all this seems dense. I’m feeling my way–and writing for myself more than for anyone else. I hope to find my way to clearer expression, eventually.

Apologies for the misplacement of the above text: I can’t figure out how to indent at this site.–Bob

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Entry 78 — Of Manywhere-at-Once, Volume Two « POETICKS

Entry 78 — Of Manywhere-at-Once, Volume Two

For three months or so I have been critiquing a book by an imbecile who doesn’t know who wrote the works of Shakespeare, only that Shakespeare did not.   Diana Price’s Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography. Each day (but one) I’ve attacked a section of it at HLAS, where the authorship debate can be carried on without restrictions.  I started the critique for many reasons, the main one being that the book is too full of crap to ignore.  Nor did I ignore it when it was first published.  I read it through, making copious annoyed and sarcastic annotations in it.  I wrote up an overview of its main thesis for use in my own authorship book.  And I fully intended to write a thorough critique of it–which I never got around to.  Until now.

2009 was a terrible year for me, especially the second half of it.  I did almost no writing during that second half.  So my second reason for my critique was simply to force myself into a writing routine.  I have to admit I also wanted something to express anger about, being pretty unhappy at the time with just about everything in my life.  In other words, take out my misery on poor Diana Price.  Not a worthy victim but published hardbound by a more respectable company than I ever was, and asked to lecture on her book at universities, as I never have been asked to lecture on my Shakespeare book.  Oh, what I’d really call my main purpose is to present a full-scale portrait of a propagandist–that is, reveal what the main propagandistic devices are and how they work.  A handbook on propaganda for the uninitiated, or–more exactly–the incompletely initiated–which would include me, out to learn in the process.

My venture  has so far been successful.  My critique is now almost 40,000 words long, and I’m almost halfway through Price’s books, which I’m covering page by page.   For some reason today I thought of a similar project I could start here: constructing day by day another book I have notes for and long ago seriously hoped to write but didn’t, my Of Manywhere-at-Once, Volume Two. (I’ve had a third volume in mind to do, as well.)

So: tomorrow I’ll begin it.  I figure I’ve pretty much taken care of this entry already–and want to add something to it that has nothing to do with my manywhere book, but want to record in case I forget about it.  It has to do with my knowlecualr psychology, specifically with my theory of temperaments.  Until an hour or so ago, I posited four temperaments (or personality-types): the rigidnik, the milyoop, the ord, and the freewender for, respectively, high-charactration/low accommodance persons, high-accommodance/low charactration persons, medium charactration/medium accommodance (ordinary) persons, and high charactration/high accommodance persons.   My types were based on two of my three mechanisms of intelligence, charactration and accommodance.  I suddenly saw earlier today that a fifth temperament based on the third mechanisms of intelligence, accelerance, might be in order.  A person high in accelerance bu not high in either of the other two mechanisms.   An eruptor?  Not sure how good a name that is, but it will do for now.

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Entry 2 — The Ten Knowlecular Awarenesses « POETICKS

Entry 2 — The Ten Knowlecular Awarenesses

Okay, today the first installment of my discussion of the nature of vispo, which begins with a summary of my theory of “awarenesses”:

A Semi-Super-Definitive Analysis of the Nature of Visual Poetry

It begins with the Protoceptual Awareness. It begins there for two reasons: (1) to get rid of the halfwits who can’t tolerate neologies and/or big words, and to ground it in Knowlecular Psychology, my neurophysiological theory of psychology (and/or epistemology).  The protoceptual awareness is one of the ten awarenesses I (so far) posit the human mind to have.  It is the primary (“proto”) awareness–the ancestor of the other nine awarenesses, and the one all forms of life have in some form.  As, I believe, “real” theoretical psychologists would agree.  Some but far from all would also agree with my belief in multiple awarenesses, although probably not with my specific choice of them.  It has much in common with and was no doubt influenced by Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.

The protoceptual awareness deals with reality in the raw: directly with what’s out there, in other words–visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory stimuli.  It also deals directly with what’s inside its possessor, muscular and hormonal states.  Hence, I divide it into three sub-awarenesses, the Sensoriceptual, Viscraceptual and Musclaceptual Awarenesses.  The other nine awarenesses are (2) the Behavraceptual Awareness, (3) the Evaluceptual Awareness, (4) the Cartoceptual Awareness, (5) the Anthroceptual Awareness, (6) the Sagaceptual Awareness, (7) the Objecticeptual Awareness, (8) the Reducticeptual Awareness, (9) the Scienceptual Awareness, and (10) the Compreceptual Awareness.

The Behavraceptual Awareness is concerned with telling one of one’s behavior, which this awareness (the only active awareness), causes.  For instance, if someone says, “Hello,” to you, your behavraceptual awareness will likely respond by causing you to say, “Hello,” back, in the process signaling you that that is what is has done.  You, no doubt, will think of the brain as yourself, but (not in my psychology but in my metaphysics) you have nothing to do with it, you merely observe what your brain chooses to do and does.  But if you feel more comfortable believing that you initiate your behavior, no problem: in that case, according to my theory, your behavraceptual awareness is concerned with telling you what you’ve decided to do and done.

The Evaluceptual Awareness measures the ratio of pain to pleasure one experiences during an instacon (or “instant of consciousness) and causes one to feel one or the other, or neither, depending on the value of that ratio.  In other words, it is in charge of our emotional state.

The Cartoceptual Awareness tells one where one is in space and time.

The Anthroceptual Awareness has to do with our experience of ourselves as individuals and as social beings (so is divided into two sub-awareness, the egoceptual awareness and the socioceptual awareness).

The Sagaceptual Awareness is one’s awareness of oneself as the protagonist of  some narrative in which one has a goal one tries to achieve.

The Objecticeptual Awareness is the opposite of the anthroceptual awareness in that it is sensitive to objects, or the non-human.

The Reducticeptual Awareness is basically our conceptual intelligence.  It reduces protoceptual data to abstract symbols like words and numbers and deals with them (and has many sub-awarenesses).

The Scienceptual Awareness deals with cause and effect, and may be the latest of our awarenesses to have evolved.

Finally, there is the Compreceptual Awareness,which is our awareness of our entire personal reality. I’m still vague about it, but tend to believe it did not precede the protoceptual awareness but later formed when some ancient life-form’s number of separate awarenesses required some general intelligence to co:ordinate their doings.

I have a busy day ahead of me, so will stop there.

Tags: , , , ,

One Response to “Entry 2 — The Ten Knowlecular Awarenesses”

  1. Bob Grumman says:

    Obviously this blog is much more for me than for anyone else (to the degree that most of the comments it gets will be by me). I contend it is not solipsistic, merely self-indulgent. I’ve already gotten something out of it–the glimmer of the way I ought to organize it. Also a better conception of what I will be calling “the Pre-Awareness.”

    I’m finding the blogging I have to do at this site very tricky, mostly simply because I was used to the way I formerly blogged. Sometimes, though, I do believe it’s because this new way is idiotic. For instance, I finally used “diversity of awarenesses” as a tag because I couldn’t get WordPress to print “multiple awarenesses” without capitalizing each word in the term’s initial letter–because, I suppose, the first time I post the tag, I capitalized it.

    The one thing this blog has that my previous blog didn’t that I like a lot is the tagging feature. I always wanted to index my previous blog (and no doubt could have but never learned how). I assume the tagging feature is a kind of indexing.

Leave a Reply

Howard Gardner « POETICKS

Posts Tagged ‘Howard Gardner’

Entry 2 — The Ten Knowlecular Awarenesses

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

Okay, today the first installment of my discussion of the nature of vispo, which begins with a summary of my theory of “awarenesses”:

A Semi-Super-Definitive Analysis of the Nature of Visual Poetry

It begins with the Protoceptual Awareness. It begins there for two reasons: (1) to get rid of the halfwits who can’t tolerate neologies and/or big words, and to ground it in Knowlecular Psychology, my neurophysiological theory of psychology (and/or epistemology).  The protoceptual awareness is one of the ten awarenesses I (so far) posit the human mind to have.  It is the primary (“proto”) awareness–the ancestor of the other nine awarenesses, and the one all forms of life have in some form.  As, I believe, “real” theoretical psychologists would agree.  Some but far from all would also agree with my belief in multiple awarenesses, although probably not with my specific choice of them.  It has much in common with and was no doubt influenced by Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.

The protoceptual awareness deals with reality in the raw: directly with what’s out there, in other words–visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory stimuli.  It also deals directly with what’s inside its possessor, muscular and hormonal states.  Hence, I divide it into three sub-awarenesses, the Sensoriceptual, Viscraceptual and Musclaceptual Awarenesses.  The other nine awarenesses are (2) the Behavraceptual Awareness, (3) the Evaluceptual Awareness, (4) the Cartoceptual Awareness, (5) the Anthroceptual Awareness, (6) the Sagaceptual Awareness, (7) the Objecticeptual Awareness, (8) the Reducticeptual Awareness, (9) the Scienceptual Awareness, and (10) the Compreceptual Awareness.

The Behavraceptual Awareness is concerned with telling one of one’s behavior, which this awareness (the only active awareness), causes.  For instance, if someone says, “Hello,” to you, your behavraceptual awareness will likely respond by causing you to say, “Hello,” back, in the process signaling you that that is what is has done.  You, no doubt, will think of the brain as yourself, but (not in my psychology but in my metaphysics) you have nothing to do with it, you merely observe what your brain chooses to do and does.  But if you feel more comfortable believing that you initiate your behavior, no problem: in that case, according to my theory, your behavraceptual awareness is concerned with telling you what you’ve decided to do and done.

The Evaluceptual Awareness measures the ratio of pain to pleasure one experiences during an instacon (or “instant of consciousness) and causes one to feel one or the other, or neither, depending on the value of that ratio.  In other words, it is in charge of our emotional state.

The Cartoceptual Awareness tells one where one is in space and time.

The Anthroceptual Awareness has to do with our experience of ourselves as individuals and as social beings (so is divided into two sub-awareness, the egoceptual awareness and the socioceptual awareness).

The Sagaceptual Awareness is one’s awareness of oneself as the protagonist of  some narrative in which one has a goal one tries to achieve.

The Objecticeptual Awareness is the opposite of the anthroceptual awareness in that it is sensitive to objects, or the non-human.

The Reducticeptual Awareness is basically our conceptual intelligence.  It reduces protoceptual data to abstract symbols like words and numbers and deals with them (and has many sub-awarenesses).

The Scienceptual Awareness deals with cause and effect, and may be the latest of our awarenesses to have evolved.

Finally, there is the Compreceptual Awareness,which is our awareness of our entire personal reality. I’m still vague about it, but tend to believe it did not precede the protoceptual awareness but later formed when some ancient life-form’s number of separate awarenesses required some general intelligence to co:ordinate their doings.

I have a busy day ahead of me, so will stop there.

February « 2010 « POETICKS

Archive for February, 2010

Entry 115 — The Knowleplex

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

The knowleplex is simply a chain of related memories–A.B.C.D.E., say–or a knowledge-chain. It is what we remember whenever we are taught anything, either formally at school (when our teacher tells us Washington is the capital of the United States, for instance) or informally during day-to-day experience (when we see our friend Sam has a pet cat).

There are three kinds: rigiplexes, flexiplexes and feebliplexes, the name depending on the strength of the knowleplex. One is too strong, one too weak, and the other just right. If we let A.B.C.D.E. stand for “one plus two is three,” then a person with a rigiplex “inscribed” with that, asked what one plus two is, will quickly answer, “three.” But if asked what one plus four is, he will give the same answer, because his rigiplex will be so strong it will become wholly active due only to “one plus.”

On the other hand, a person with a feebliplex “inscribed” with “one plus two is three,” asked what one plus two is, will answer “I dunno,” because his feebliplex will be so weak, even “one plus two is” won’t be enough for his knowlplex to become active. Ditto when asked what one plus four is. But the person whose knowleplex is just right–whose knowleplex is a flexiplex, that is–will answer the first question, “three,” and the second, “I dunno.”

Needless to say, this overview is extremely simplified. Even “one plus two is three” will form a vastly more complicated knowleplex than A.B.C.D.E. The strength of a given knowleplex will vary, too, sometimes a lot, depending on the circumstances when it is activated. And each kind of knowleplex will vary in strength, some feebliplexes being almost as strong as a flexiplex, for example. In fact, a feebliplex can, in time, become a rigiplex. For the purposes of this introduction to knowleplexes, however, all this can be ignored.

Entry 114 — “Mathemaku in Honor of Andrea Bianco’s 1436 Map of the World”

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Surprise!  I’m back already.  May be back on vacation tomorrow, though.   I’m back today because I somehow managed to produce a new mathemaku yesterday:

Mathemaku in Honor of Andrea Bianco's 1436 Map of the World

Entry 113 — Another Vacation

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

Guess what.  I’m taking a vacation from blogging again.  I’m not sure how long it will last.  All I know is that I don’t seem to have anything to write about, and I lack the energy to convert the diary entries I’m planning to use in the next volume of my Of Manywhere-at-Once into anything even semi-readable.  So, see you later.

Entry 111 — Certainties

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

I think recently I wrote of the impossibility of knowing a true absolute.  It would require omniscience to do so, I believe.  But that does not mean there are no true absolutes.

Just now, I realized that we can know a true absolute.  When?  Sorry for the anti-climax, but it’s when we have defined absolutes into a system.  One such system would be mathematics.  If a equals 5 and b equals 7, then it is an absolute certainty that the sum of a and b is 12.  Syllogisms yield absolute truths as well in a similar way.  If all men can reason and Joe is a man, it is an absolute certainty that Joe is a man.  Or: it is absolutely certain that something said to fit a definition fits that definition.

In any event, I now decree a new hierarchy of certainties, listed here from most to least certain:

1. Philosophical Certainty (we can’t know of any)

2. Mathematical Certainty (e.g., 5 times 3 is 15)

3. Scientific Certainty (e.g., gravity keeps the moon from escaping the solar system)

4. Historical Certainty (e.g., Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him)

5. Everyday Certainty (e.g., I watched Joe and Bucky play Ed and Marty in tennis this morning)

Each of these is certain, but a small step less certain than the one listed above it.  Any of them may also be Philosophically Certain but we can never know if it is.

Have I now worked out something college freshmen are taught in Philosophy courses?  It does seems painfully obvious to me.  Yet I know that there are many who will find is too advanced to understand, including people who have taken more than an introductory college course in philosophy.

Entry 110 — The Three Varieties of Rhyme

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

I’ve come up with new terms for two of the three kinds of rhyme in my poetics.  One is Chyme-Rhyme for standard rhyme (e.g., “bat/cat”).  The other is  Rhyle-Rhyme for the kind of rhyme I’ve called various names, “Backward Rhyme,” being the most frequent (e.g. “bat/badge”).  My name for the third kind of rhyme in my poetics is Rim-Rhyme, the perfect name coined many years ago for it (e.g. “bat/bet”).

The new names follow the logic of “Rim-Rhyme” by demonstrating the sound of the kind of rhyme they name, but not the construction, as “Rim-Rhyme” does.   The “Chyme” of regular rhyme seems fitting, too.  As for “Rhyle,” well, it’s a kind of rhyme that riles traditionalists, and I couldn’t come up with a better “rhy-consonant” word to use.

I should haven’t to explain why I consider all three of my kinds of rhyme valid rhymes, but while some accept rim-rhyme because of Wilfred Owen, I think no one has accepted rhyle-rhyme.  But it seems sensible to call such a combination a rhyme rather than an alliteration/assonance.  And it seems sensible to call any pair or great number of unidentical syllables sharing two sounds to be rhymes.

Entry 109 — An Old Sonnet

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

I was around twenty when I wrote this following sonnet.   A few days ago, I changed its last two lines–and, just now,  line one’s “eagle eyes” to “sharpened eyes.”  I have all kinds of trouble evaluating it.  It may be okay or even good, but it’s  so much in a long-disused style, in spite of its backwards rhyming that halfwits won’t consider rhyming, that I can’t read it with much enjoyment.

John Keats

He read of Greece; and then with sharpened eyes,
espied its gods’ dim conjurations still
in breeze-soft force throughout his native isle–

in force in clouds’ remote allusiveness,
in oceanwaves’ eternal whispering,
in woodlands’ shadowy impermanence.

Once cognizant of earth’s allure, he sought
a method of imprisonment – a skill
with which to hold forever what he saw.

The way the soil and vernal rain converge
in carefree swarming flowers, Keats & Spring
then intersected quietly in verse.

The realms he had so often visted
at once grew larger by at least a tenth.

Entry 108 — MATO2, Chapter 3.08

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

I’ve lost any enthusiasm I had for this project, but I’m continuing it, anyway–today with just excerpts from my diary, some of them repeating stuff I already have somewhere in this manuscript.  Sorry.  But who’s reading?

8:30 P.M.  Thursday  30 January 1992

The mail was moderately interesting for a change: letters from Arnold Falleder and Jonathan Brannen, and forms to fill out for that international Who’s Who company that David Thomas Roberts recommended me for, and for this year’s write-up on my press in Poet’s Market.

10 P.M.  Saturday  1 February 1992

I had what seemed good ideas concerning my sonnet, especially just after retiring for a nap this afternoon.  Geof had said last night that he thought I was a maniac for continuing so persistently with the sonnet, but that it was a form of greatness.  He also said he preferred one of the versions of the poem three or four before my “final” one better than the final one, which was what got me thinking about how to improve it again.  I got awakened from my nap by a call from C. L. Champion, of all people.  We talked for about two hours.  He seems quite bright but is only around Surllama’s age.  He was quite taken with Of Manywhere-at-Once, which was encouraging.  After talking with him, and Geof, who called a second time because he needed the title of David’s book, I had another idea or two.  For a while I was very happy with the new version of the sonnet but now I think only two changes good ones, and they’re both minor.  I’ll probably try to think of yet more changes.

10 February 1992.  I need some kind of success soon–I seem (as I’ve been thinking every once in a while for several months now) that I’ve become addicted to favorable attention, and start having withdrawel symptoms if I don’t get some kind of applause or the equivalent, however small, every week or so–like the acceptance of a poem, or a compliment about one of my essays from a colleague.

8 P.M.  Tuesday  18 February 1992

I heard back from Laurel Spence.  Nice letter but she didn’t seem much interested in Of Manywhere-at-Once, saying that it wasn’t the kind of book she looks for for review.  She sent me a copy of one of her poetry collections–not bad, though more quotidian in subject matter and thought than I consider the best poetry to be.  Self-expression much more than exploration of the language, or a quest for higher meanings.  I’ve always considered her too set in her ways to be open to the full world of poetry, and her response is further evidence of the validity of my impression.

9 P.M.  Thursday  20 February 1992

I got an encouraging postcard from Dana Gioia.  He said he didn’t have time to start up a correspondence but that if I sent him some of my reviews and poems he would look them over and send me comments on them, when time permitted.  This evening I got together a packet of things.  Unfortunately I don’t have many textual poems to send him–he specified that I send him material in print.  (Mediocrities always need a previous mediocrity to verify any writer’s worth before being able to devote serious attention to the writer.)  If he’s got any kind of ear and/or brain, he should like my criticism, though.

9 P.M.  Saturday  22 February 1992

A box of new products from Geof, without a cover letter.  The latest issue of Alabama Dogshoe Moustache I particularly liked, for it had a wonderful couplingual poem by George Swede, which I quote in full, “graveyarduskilldeer.”  Geof also sent me a list of the words he’s found relating to verbo-visual art.  This is the skeleton of his historical dictionary of verbo-visual art.  I have a few problems with it, the main one being that he includes a lot of terminology that doesn’t have anything to do with verbo-visual art, such as my own term, “alphaconceptual poetry.”  He also wants to use “An” with “historical” in the title, and I hate this exception to the rule that “an” goes only before words beginning with vowels.  Some of the entries seem weakly defined, but that’s no doubt because this is just a rough draft.  I approve of the effort and hope I can help but it looks like it’ll require an incredibly large amount of work.

11 P.M.  Monday  24 February 1992

A Letter from Len Fulton.  He has decided he can’t run as it is because it is a review of a book I published.  But he made up for that by inviting me to review a collection of d. a. levy stuff–and he suggested I revise my Kempton piece so it was a discussion of a kind of poetry which used Kempton’s pieces as examples.  Of course, that’s how I saw the piece to begin with, but I made some changes that I hope will make it acceptable to him–and accepted his invitation to review the levy book.  I also spent an hour and a half at the library helping Bernice Weiss set up the Tuesday Writers’ Group display that Bernice got Nancy, the librarian, to let us do.

9 P.M.  Tuesday  25 February 1992

Metropophobobia, an otherstream store I’m sending 3 copies of Of Manywhere-at-Once and some other items on consignment.

11:30 P.M.  Wednesday  26 February 1992

I worked fairly hard most of the day, but the main result was my deciding I was all screwed up about what alphaconceptuality was, and that the version of the Kempton piece that I wrote for Fulton this morning to replace the one I sent him Monday needed itself to be replaced, which I just finished doing.

10 P.M.  Thursday  27 February 1992

My response to the Core Questionnaire on Visual Poetry (nothing, alas, profound, and it tired me).  Next day a letter to Geof on the changes in my poetics terminology.  New term: “Portmanteaual Poetry.”  Plus work on my next Factsheet Five column, which I will base on my Sontag piece.

2 March: the mail was pretty good: a note from Jack Moskovitz and–surprisingly–a genial card from Dana Gioia, who said my package had arrived and he’denjoyed its contents.  He also sent me, separately, a review he’d done in 1977 of a collection of haiku, and an ad for an anthology of literary essays he had a piece in.  I ordered a copy of the latter and expect to write the author of the haiku book as Gioia suggested.  I also wrote a short letter back to Gioia.

I spent the afternoon of 4 March at a meeting of the arts and humanities council.  It was interesting but not very helpful.  I wanted to try to get something done about making my press eligible for grants but no real opening for a disucssion about it presented itself.  Too many people were there with competing concerns–concerns, moreover, that the majority of the other people shared, as they wouldn’t’ve my problems getting RASP eligible for grants.  I went to the meeting with the beginning of a headache.  I had planned to gulp down some aspirins before leaving but forgot to.  I was pretty shot on my return and still feel mildly crappy despite having taken two aspirns at 5 followed by two alka-selzers with aspirin in them at around 6:30.  In short, not a good day at all.

5 March I spent some time thinking about a proposal I hope to send the arts and humanities council about an improved artists’ and artworks’ registry.  It’s something that should appeal to them, and get me better involved with them.

11 March 1992.  I just finished a final revision of my response to the Core Questionnaire on Visual Poetry.  My answers were pretty pedestrian but sound enough, I suppose.  Next day a letter from CL Champion with a silly/amusing parody of my Sonnet–and a revision thereof!

14 March: a copy of the latest issue of the newsletter John Byrum edits, with the second excerpt from my book in it.  It was reassuring to see that the series of excerpts is indeed continuing.

16 March: a letter from D. T. Roberts that was very favorable about Of Manywhere-at-Once.

10:30 P.M.  Thursday  19 March 1992

The big event of the day was the coining of a new term, “textual figuration,” to replace “textual vizlation.”  “Figuration” is a standard English word meaning “act or instance of representing a shape or figure,” so it’s close enough to meaning visual art to use it for that, it seems to me.  A person practicing it would be a “figurateur,” I’ve decided.  The relevant adjective would be, “figurational,” to distinguish it from “figurative,” which has a conflicting literary meaning.

26 March 1992.  2 filled-out data sheets for the arts-in-eduation artists’ registry, one more or less properly filled-out, the other scantily filled out in protest of the kind of information asked for; my computerized arts-registry proposal; and a brief cover-letter to Jean Martensen, the Arts & Humanities Council executive director.

10:30 P.M.  Saturday  28 March 1992

A note from Len Fulton that he was using my infra-verbal poetry piece in the April issue.

10 P.M.  Friday  17 April 1992

Then the incoming mail arrived and included 3 pleasant items: 2 copies of the latest issue of the

Small Press Review with my guest editorial in it.

19 April 1992: a decision I made and might actually stick to: to drop out of the arts and council, and not get involved in any new organizations such as the local writers’ group I was going to try to get to a meeting of; also the writers’ conference I was going to try to get a fellowship to.  I’ve got to concentrate on getting the  RASPbooks done, keeping from falling too far behind with my correspondence, continuing to get material into print here and there, and–most of all–getting my next book done.  I mustn’t spread myself too thin.

8:30 P.M.  Friday  1 May 1992

Todd bought 16 books, including my Of Manywhere-at-Once.  He seemed nice.  Apparently he’s a recovered, or recovering, druggie.  Does photography and seems from the pictures he showed me to have a good eye.  He goes in for road kills, though, which aren’t my favorite subject matter.  He did a series of one corpse that recorded its “life” over a period of several days.  It had some quite interesting moments.

Entry 107 — MATO2, Chapter 3.07

Monday, February 15th, 2010

A list from my diary of my main micro-triumphs for the 1991:

(1) 4 different presses (all “micro-presses”) solicited me for material to make books of and I sent stuff they found acceptable to all four.  One is to be a book of just four poems, the second a book of seven poems, and the third a book of perhaps a dozen poems.  The fourth (Haw!) is  (probably–the main editor accepted it but it still needs the okay of some panel under him) to be a printing of Barbaric Bart Meets Batperson and her Indian Companion, Taco.  Sent Werebird to Sarasota, too.  (It was turned done, needless to say.  The play was accepted, then printed with the pages out of order.)

(2) Factsheet Five, the only magazine I’ve been doing a regular column for changed hands, and the new editor kept only two of the old columnists, out of ten or so: me and another guy.  A minor triumph, for sure, but reassuring (until somebody else took over and dropped me).

(3) I’ve been sent forms to fill out by two Who’s Who publishers, one the standard people here in the US, the other some people in England who do an International Who’s Who.  The U.S. Who’s Who is called Who’s Who in the South and Southwest and seems to be the Who’s Who one level below that company’s Who’s Who in America.  I got pegged for the international one through a friend who’s gotten into it; I have no idea where the other company got my name.  I’m only being considered for both but, still, any kind of recognition is encouraging.  (I got into both.)

(4) Just yesterday I got a letter from a new acquaintance who wants to do an article on me for a magazine he writes for.  If it comes off, and I’m sure it will, it will be the first article on me.

(5) I had some pieces in an international visual poetry show in San Luis Obispo that then went on tour.  One of its stops was in New York State, where my brother Bill went to see it, reporting that due to lack of space only ten of the seventy or so artists in the show had work  displayed–and I was one of them!  I also had things in shows elsewhere in the U.S., and in Italy, Ireland and Australia.

(6) Two of my visual poems were reprinted in a German anthology of American visual poetry.

(7) A slick magazine called Art Papers had a survey of mail art in which I was mentioned.

(8) A quarterly poetry magazine is publishing excerpts from my Of Manywhere-at-Once–and describing me as “a nationally-known poet, critic and publisher.”

(9) A poem I co-authored is to be translated into a foreign language (Italian).  (Ha, I had forgotten about that.  Iti did get translated, so I’ve now been translated into at least two foreign languages, Italian and Hungarian.  I’m pretty sure something of mine was translated into German, too–probably the words of a visual poem in one of the German publications I had work in.

10.  52 copies of Of Manywhere-at-Once, 2nd ed., got into print.  The printer did an excellent job as far as I could tell.  Of course, I found defects, but they were my fault, not the printer’s.  I was quite satisfied with the book, overall.

Pretty weak.  The horror of it is that I’ve done little better since.

Entry 106 — MATO2, Chapter 3.06

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

During the fall of 1991 I finished getting the revised edition of Of Manywhere-at-Once

I participated in my first local poetry reading on  Saturday  26 October 1991.  It took place at the Sea Grape art gallery in Punta Gorda.  My writers’ group friend, Ken Reynaud,  picked me up about 1:30 and got me there ten minutes before the reading began.  (A bicycle, as I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, by then was my only mode of transportation, other than my legs by themselves.)  The reading went quite well.  I would guess that about thirty people attended parts of it and 15 to 20 were still there when I did my presentation, around 4.  There were two featured readers.  The first was a 78-year-old lady who had just begun writing poems a year ago, but had written over three hundred.  She was amusing, and some of her poems were quite funny.  They were pure doggerel, though, and the seriousest ones were horrible-bad sentimental and uninspired.

At about 2:45 the main poet came on, a guy in his thirties, I would guess, Michael Haymans, who has since become a good friend of mine.  He was an excellent speaker, helped a good deal by having memorized most of his poems.  Free verse celebrations of Florida wildlife constituted perhaps half his poems, and they were pretty good, although not technically adventurous.  He threw in a few preachy b.s. poems and a couple of comic poems.  I talked to him later and learned that he’s part of a local band, which explains his effective manner as a reader.  (As does his being a lawyer, something else I soon learned about him.)  He’s part of the monthly “literary salon” that’s started up recently in the county, and that I heard about from Linda Salisbury, another local writer who does a humorous column for one of the papers whom I met (I believe) at one of my writers’ group meetings.  I hope to get involved in it somehow.  It meets evenings, though, so it might be difficult.  We had a break for cookies and apple cider after Mike’s stint, which lasted about an hour.  Five people presented material after the break.  The first was Claire Smith, whom I’d met at the Tuesday Writers’ Club once or twice.  She did some competent  light verse.  She was followed by the local Save-the-Trees radical, Louise Ratterman (I think that’s her name), who read just one poem–about a flower.  She read well enough vocally, but hunched up as she read, and didn’t glance up from her poem till the end.  She also wore a pink dress and thick glasses that made her look like a fifth-grader from the 50′s, reciting for a class assignment.

At that point I came on.  I was nervous but got through my first poem (“On the Outskirts of Westport”) without a mishap, and it seemed to go over reasonably well.   I left out a part of my first real line but said the important part of it and got through my second poem, the definition of visual poetry as ampersand cubed pretty well.  I got a laugh when I admitted that some friends had found the definition “not that helpful.”  My “nocturne,” which came next, got the best reception.  It elicited several oooo’s and ahhhs, in fact.  I think I might have over-explained it, but no one seemed to mind.  “The Serpent” got a few chuckles, and my final piece, the haiku about “the raw hues of lights,” did okay, I guess.  I got good applause, and then one of the ladies in charge of the gallery wanted to know what I was doing with my work, whether I was getting it out where people could enjoy it (she seemed to like it quite a bit), so I summarized the American visual poetry scene, as I know it.  Later she made a point of getting my phone number and address in case they had another reading.  I chatted a bit with Claire Smith, then left.  A good experience.

REPRODUCTIONS of the pieces I read or showed here.

The very next day I again was active marketing myself, this time at a fair that began with four guys parachuting into the county auditorium parking lot while the Charlotte High School Band performed.  Once all the parachutists were down, the band marched into the auditorium.  The tables and booths and what not within the auditorium were attractively arranged.   Quite a lot of visimagery on display but none of it even slightly interesting to one of my refined taste, none of it post-impressionism, and hardly any of it even impressionistic.  I met Linda Grotke Salisbury and her husband, with whom I was to share a table.  Nice people.  I left all four of my books plus copies of my seaquence (REPRODUCE) plus a number of my Score Sheets and Score Reviews–and my ampersand piece with them.  I returned at around five.  Linda said she’d sold quite a few of her own books but none of mine.  The author’s presence helped, she said.  I bought a copy of her first book and read a few pieces from it when I got home.  She has a nice breezy, amusing style.  The usual kind of Bombeck et al subjects but well-done and well-packaged.

Around the middle of November, the first excerpt of my book appeared on the front page (and second) of the newsletter John Byrum edited, and my piece on John Bennett’s “The Shirt, the Sheet” was on page three.  Bennett had a review in the issue, too, and Geof’s article on the art strike was reprinted as well.  The highpoint of the issue for me, though, was a reference to me as “a nationally-known poet and critic.”  When I read that to Mother, her response, after a laugh, was, “Not internationally?”  Later, Lee made the same remark when I read the line to the Tuesday Writers’ Club.

Meanwhile, I got a letter from some Who’s Who people saying I had passed some preliminary screening process.  A text about me was included.  I was to correct it and return it.  This I did.  The letter was mainly about an opportunity I was being given to buy a copy of the book for only $120 or something in that range.  I wouldn’t pay $5 for it, even if that guaranteed that I would have an entry in it.  I was annoyed by all this, for the first letter said nothing about a series of screenings, and there was no point in getting corrections to my text until it was certainit would be used.  It’s clearly a scam to get me sufficiently hepped up about being close to getting into the book to order a copy.

Throughout the month I stayed busy printing out (and continuing to revise) the pages of the second volume of Of Manywhere-at-Once.  I noticed quite a few passages that could have been improved but I just didn’t have the time or desire to go through the damned thing yet another time.  At around the middle of the month I had my pages all printed, but had to paste in the illustrations I wanted to use.  Having 100 copies of the book printed would cost around $500, I’d found out.  Plus shipping, which turned out to be a couple of hundred dollars, to my surprise and dismay.

All kinds of little chores had yet to be taken care of, like outlining my pages in blue to make sure the printer got the margins right.  Hence, the month was just about over when I finally was able to package my book and drop it off at the UPS depot.

ENTRY 105 — A Taxonomy of Elitism

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

While puttering my way into an essay I want to write about what causes Shakespeare-Denial and thinking about Shakespeare-Deniers worship of aristocrats and the educated, I formed the following, which I thought might be a welcome break from my Of Manywhere-at-Once rough draft:

A Taxonomy of Elitism

aristophile: an elitist who holds that aristocrats (or the equivalent, such as the later generations of the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts in the USA) are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are high in social status, with those whose status is highest being at least an order of  magnitude more important than everyone else.

celebriphile: an elitist who holds that the people the front pages of newspapers deal with are superior to everyone else, with those most discussed and photographed being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.

politiphile: an elitist who holds that office-holding politicians and those appointed to positions by politicians are superior to everyone else to the degree that they have power, with those having most political power being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.

culturaphile: an elitist who holds persons he considers to be of high achievement in the arts and sciences are superior to everyone else to the degree that their accomplishments are great, with those whose achievements are the greates being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.

eduphile: an elitist who holds that the formally-educated (but certified schools and/or professional tutor are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are formally-educated, with those most formally-educated academics being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.

plutophile: an elitist who holds that wealthy people are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are wealthy, with the wealthiest being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.

ethophile: an elitist who holds that those he considers morally upright are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are morally upright, with those closest, in his view, to sainthood, being at least ten orders of magnitude more important than everyone else.

* * *

I have no problem owning up to the fact that I am a grade-A culturaphile, perhaps a culturaphiliac, or excessively ardent culturaphile.  I am to a degree a plutophile, too, for I do believe rich people are superior to poor people, although–of course–some poor people are superior to some rich people.  In fact one poor person, ME, is superior to ALL rich persons.  I also believe that those who are aristocrats by birth are superior to those who aren’t, or were when being an aristocrat meant something.  I consider myself semi-aristo- cratic due to much of my ancestors having been relatively prominent in this country for over three hundred years. There are two streets in my hometown of Norwalk, Connecticut, which was founded in 1650, that are named after the Grumman family, and the British were recorded as having watched the locally famous burning of the town during the Revolutionary War from Grumman Hill.  William Tecumsa Sherman is a cousin as is James Sherman I think that was his name, the only man elected to the office of U.S. Vice President who died before serving, and LeRoy Grumman, the founder of Grumman Aircraft.

I hope no one who knows me thinks I’m bragging about this rather than disclosing a few amusing things about my background.  I do think familial background important but don’t think mine was anything of note, though not wholly shabby, either.

None of the other elitisms appeal to me, at all.  Some I’m downright contemptuous of.

Other notes: Shakespeare-Deniers are both aristophiliacs and eduphiliacs.  Most people are mixtures of elitists, not infrequently excessively elitist in one small way or another.

Feedback on my taxonomy most welcome.  Any elitist I failed to list?  Any I should not have?