Entry 437 — Another New-Poetry Post of Mine
As my day began and through most of it, I was my usual sleepy self. Had a busy doctor-day, too. But I took a couple of APCs three hours or so ago for a headache, and feel quite good. I’m not up to writing a really good entry here, but wrote a pretty funny e.mail to New-Poetry an hour or so after taking the APCs and think it’ll work reasonably well for today’s entry. Here it is as written except that I deleted one word that I’d replaced with a second word but forgot to take out:
>> On 5/4/2011 2:35 PM, Halvard Johnson wrote:
>> Truth-seeking and mindless nihilism are false alternatives, Bob.
>> See what I mean?Get me in a formal debate, Hal, and I’ll plead guilty to any false dichotomies I commit. This one is what I’d call a colloquial one, or maybe an ellipsis–meaning, “truth seeking and sufficient mindless nihilism to prevent truth from being found,” to a verosopher but not to one trying to win an argument. It’s like the statement, “a person is either black or white.” Everyone knows what it means although everyone is also aware that in a small minority of cases it’ll be very hard to decide which a person is. “A person is either black or white” really means “A person either has dark enough skin to be considered by most people to be black or he doesn’t, in which case he is deemed to be white.” Everyone is also aware that “everyone” really means “almost everyone” and that “black” and “white” don’t mean “black” and “white.”
I just realized that what I’ve been writing, slightly changed, would make a good Arthur Vogelsang poem. What a name he has for a poet! If I have the German right. I would be amazed if he is not a favorite of yours, Hal. I was unfamiliar with his work until I got a copy of his Expedition to review for Small Press Review. Very funny. He would take what I said and change the order, and add non sequiturs. Into it surrealize a smoking chimney some woman leans against with her tenses awry and nothing to do with Santa Claus except eye-color, although the latter has to do with chimneys (Santa Clause, not eye-color), if not compulsively since what’s once every 365 or 366 nights a year? Am I what I am because I’m trying to desatirize his work or is he what he is because he is satirizing my verosophy. Which he would agree would be simple to do although he doesn’t know me any more than he knows Santa Claus. Who has nothing to do with sentence structure. Which is nonetheless considered important in some circles. By everyone, which is not to say “everyone.” In most circles. Repetition is important.
Back to Me:
It’s simple. I asked Anny whose side Freddy would be on, mine or Amy’s. The extremely strong implication of that is that Freddy could be expected to be on one side or the other–if we ignore, as we do colloquially (see my preceding paragraph), the possibility that he will be neutral, and my Freddy would never be neutral. Hence, your saying Freddy Laker was the Freddy I meant indicates that you thought Freddy Laker could be expected to be on one side or the other. But you won’t say what it was about him that would cause him to side with either Amy or me.
Sure, you could be having fun with the idea of Freddy Laker’s being on Amy’s side because they are both high fliers, or deliver the goods, etc. Or a knight would be on the side of a King. But I think that after you realized where I was (seeking a truth, remember, although a small one), you would out of considerateness have told me that you were a lot less than as serious about your Freddy as I about mine. True, I was using my Freddy in an attempt at a joke, but a joke in which what my Freddy was, had to be taken seriously for it to work.
Right, I’m going on and on. I am crazy, for I really think there are some out there who will enjoy reading this as much as I’m enjoying writing it (due primarily to the two APC’s I took a while ago for a headache, no doubt). But I’m also writing for myself. I’m going to use this as my blog entry for today. I thought for a moment I’d spare New-Poetry participants from having to see it, and just provide a link to my blog here. Then I thought, why? All someone this offends need do to get me to stop making such posts is to go public with a legitimate case against its value. That means more than denouncing it and/or monster-me. Defeated by a rational case, I would retire from the field. I would hope. Dumped on for being out of tune with Proper Understanding of What’s Right, I fear, won’t have much of an effect on me.
Since few here will take the time for that, maybe Finnegan can add a like and a don’t like button to every post–or be even more insipid and just add a like button as Facebook does.
Why is “egocentricity” a good word and “anthrocentricity” comically stupid a word?
Whee.
–Bob