Thursday, April 15, 2004

Let's get the blog going again, shall we?

Reading Jessea's blog, I feel a new interesting debate coming our way: I- You and Love Poem. Sounds good, doesn't it? So, let's go:

I feel like the yes-no question--Does X-kind of poetry matter?--is getting too limited to use. Maybe we should ask HOW does X-kind of poetry matter. And then we might be able to address the question from there.

So, how does love poetry matter?
It matters in such a way that people find pleasure out of it. (And maybe as Jessea said they get hooked up with other people). Then, people might start address it aesthetically or "intellectually," like there's metaphisical transcendence happening in it, or life can still be so beautiful because love exists. Blah blah blah. But it seems to me this is the end of it. It doesn't address a larger scope than personal pleasure. Which is important, no denial on that. It's true, I think, that no pleasure makes living questionable. I'll pick it up again after this:

How does political poetry matter (and by political poetry, I mean...gee...poems whose concerns are bigger than intimacy...let's live with that for now)?
It matters in such a way that it places larger scope as the primary concern. It says something like one's personal pleasure is not going to take precedence over the things that are, according to him or her, "wrong" in the world. This is important too.

So both matter, but in a different scale. Now, when we say scale, there are necessarily more than one things in question. What I want to say is that THEY BOTH MATTER because afterall, it's about human. And being human, we function always in a different scale: we're in a relationship, we're student at Mills, we're residents of CA, we're pupolation of the world. Different kind of poetry might be addressing primarily at the different space. Which at the end will be all connected because it aims at human, multi-scale beings.

OK. I'm getting too philosophical here. Stop me.

But let me throw in one more thing, though. About meaning, from yesterday. I hooked it up with Descartes' cognito: I think, therefore I am. And here is what i wanna say: Even if you say you're not thinking, you ARE thinking (that you are not thinking). Even if you say there's no meaning, you ARE giving it meaning (that there's no meaning) and then that is where you kinna locate its significance. I think nothing can have no meaning so long as we think. (OK. Scott is going to come at my position now...... I'll say let's have another engaged discussion or two before we officially get floated out of here. It will be good!)

I'll stop here.