Hello Trever,
What are the technical (how to do but cannot do) issues I keep seeing in your poetry? When I see your nature poems I wonder if you are attempting a poetic transcription from a documentary by David Attenborough. In which case, I am not often sure what value is added by the poem, because I too can watch television. Better still, I might, leave my house and, uhm, whatchacallit, go observe for myself what nature is.
If you are attempting to transcribe theoretical physics into poetry, then, again, I am not sure what value you are adding in the poems I have seen. If you are just taking general imaginative tangents on the material, then there are untold hours of podcasts by professional theoretical physicist who have practiced talking to the public that I can go and listen to. What insights are you offering? I am not talking about theoretical physics insight, but what are you trying to say about life? Often the thoughts are phrased in a way that would not get one good grades on something like a A-level Philosophy exam (merely reciting stuff stops getting rewarded much at GCSE level).
The issue is not attempting poetic transcriptions of nature material or theoretical physics material, but my questions can be categorised as:
[1] What is your first hand experience with the topics? (If no first hand experience, then what are you offering?)
[2] Do you know how to poetically handle the materials? (Focusing on content, ignores that poetry is as much about the form)
Compare:
[1] From Your Poem
"Forever seeing a moment
into the galloping future,
the world is just a theory,
sight an act of prediction
to wrestle sense and perhaps survive
the shifty realm of perception,
a moment’s delay
between the fattening of a lens
and messages relayed to a brain
that likes to comprehend –
a moment that might unravel a future,
or even a head, on a busy road."
[2] Quote from Essay:
https://j-griswold.medium.com/where-...s-f400347d8aa8
"Instead, when he says “It is often the case that concepts of philosophy are poetic,” Stevens essentially means that, as a poet, he finds certain philosophical ideas inspiring. He explains by way of an example:
According to the traditional views of sensory perception, we do not see the world immediately but only as the result of a process of seeing and after the completion of that process, that is to say, we never see the world except the moment after. Thus, we are constantly observing the past. (272)
Stevens finds this concept fascinating:
Here is an idea, not the result of poetic thinking and entirely without poetic intention, which instantly changes the face of the world. Its effect is that of an almost inappreciable change of which, nevertheless, we remain acutely conscious. The material world, for all the assurances of the eye, has become immaterial. It has become an image in the mind. . . . What we see is not an external world but an image of it and hence an internal world. (272)
Stevens is excited by this idea. And in passing, we might note that Stevens’ addressed this idea in a poem where he observes that we are always — as the poem’s title has it — “Waving Adieu, Adieu, Adieu”"
[2] Excerpts from essay:
[2.1] we do not see the world immediately but only as the result of a process of seeing and after the completion of that process, that is to say, we never see the world except the moment after. Thus, we are constantly observing the past.
[2.2] The material world, for all the assurances of the eye, has become immaterial. It has become an image in the mind. . . . What we see is not an external world but an image of it and hence an internal world.
Let me add line breaks and what do I get:
[3] Literally Excerpted Prose with Linebreaks:
we do not see the world immediately
but only as the result of a process of seeing
and after the completion of that process
we never see the world except the moment after
we are constantly observing the past
the material world for all the assurances of the eye
has become immaterial
has become an image in the mind
Now Stevens is such a master of the form of poetry, stuff like voice, tone, cadence, repetition, syntax, phrasing (and I have added the technique of strophes) that the above is not totally trash even if it leans most heavily on the prosaic.
But he did not publish the above, here is the poem he apparently (going off the original article) wrote on the idea:
https://jayx2.livejournal.com/63285.html.The interesting thing is the gap between the poem and my "prose with linebreaks".
Poetry is technical. What the technique consists of, and how to sequence the learning and development of such is... not well known. The philosophical content of my "prose with linebreaks" is very, very, very common, but the form is what allows it to become somewhat "poetic" or at least heightens and foregrounds the poetic technique which was already implicit in the prose.
At the moment you keep going with the strategy of failing to transcribe common information into poetry because little attention is being paid to form and the technique that form requires.
Too, Hindus thousands of years ago were going with the "senses cannot be trusted" (problematic on several levels) motif, so the concept is not even a science invention which needs talk about the physical mechanisms of sight.
.
Yeah.
Foresight
Hybrid Mode
