The one you referenced as a beautiful haiku..

It's not a haiku tho...

A'ight, well, anyways I left you guys a haiku I wrote during lockdown a couple posts back. Whatevs

Indeed, it says it's hokku. — TheMadFool

Where?...

The only Haiku poetry I can remember from my youth is,

Leaves fall
And pile up;
Rain beats on rain.
— Gyōdai — TheMadFool

That's not haiku brah..

Plastic bag pigeons
Billow slowly overhead
The soft city groans

*

Hmmm, maybe refresh your browser, but I'll copy and paste the edit I made to my post here:

EDIT: or rather, the way you phrase your response here seems to rely on the assumption that 1) non-rationality, 2) affectivity, 3) intuition and 4) aesthetic experience are all unreliable "curiosities" of the human experience, rather than reliable sources of information on par with, for instance, logic. What's up with that?

Did you see my edit?

I agree that metaphysical perspectives are not rationally, but affectively motivated. I also understand that it is pretty normal for people to entertain some metaphysics or other on account of their intuitions; and intuitions are certainly fed by aesthetic experience(s). — Janus

So why begin with the assumption that all of this is false?

EDIT: or rather, the way you phrase your response here seems to rely on the assumption that 1) non-rationality, 2) affectivity, 3) intuition and 4) aesthetic experience are all unreliable "curiosities" of the human experience, rather than reliable sources of information on par with, for instance, logic. What's up with that?

I can't make any sense of the idea of a musical metaphysic. For me music evokes feelings; among them feelings of the sublime, feelings of awe, feelings of reverence but none of those feelings are inextricably linked to any particular metaphysical conjecture or belief as far as I can tell. The same goes for poetry and the visual arts, but then they, being more capable of representation, can present metaphysical ideas in ways that music cannot, except more vaguely by association with the church or whatnot. — Janus

At the risk of disagreeing with myself, I would suggest that those feelings are what constitute a musical metaphysic. This is something that bothers me a lot; why assume that emotions are inferior? The emotions you feel when listening to music are the real deal; those feelings constitute the metaphysic. You don't build a musical metaphysic from cold logic; you build it from the stuff of music; namely, from emotion. The problem I'm trying to highlight is that this is so personal by nature; my personal metaphysic as an artist is related to how specific musical items elicit certain emotions in me, thus creating my metaphysic. It's crude language I'm using, to be sure. But, the feelings create the metaphysic. But how can I share that with you? I can't. Unless I can...you would have to "identify" with my metaphysic; when I show you a piece you would have to say "yup" without any further questions. And yes, "church" may have something to do with it indeed.

Indeed; why didn't the men stay home while the women went out and stabbed one another with spears in the olden days?

My only real experience with poetry from a significantly foreign time and place is the Tao Te Ching. I've received much more from that than I ever have from all but a very few modern poets who write in English. The minute I first read it it grabbed me. Since then, I've read parts of at least 15 translations. Each helps me build up a more complete experience. — T Clark

I won't argue with your personal experience with the Tao Te Ching.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Gus Lamarch, do music and visual art have a metaphysics? If so, please explain. — T Clark

I'm just not even sure it's the right question to be asking. I don't get it. As a composer of music, I think I have a personal, private musical metaphysic. But I think it would be hubristic to project that unto other artists and other musics. I'm not sure how, if at all, there can be any bridge from a personal to a universal musical metaphysic.

It's hard to say what the negatives of a matriarchy would be that are specific to matriarchies, and not just any hierarchical society. — darthbarracuda

Can society exist without hierarchy?

.

:fire:

Poetry uses words, but is not like our other uses. I know that because I feel it. Poetry feels like music. It feels like visual art. It goes to the same place inside — T Clark

Sure, good poetry makes us feel it in ways that evoke music, visual art, etc. Of course I agree with you there. I also write music (that's my main creative outlet); I get that. The words of good poetry evoke these images. That's not an argument against my argument. Poetry is fated against it's own time because it's language. It will always fade because of it's stuff. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. But it does mean that there's no "metaphysic" of poetry as such. I'm familiar with Machu Picchu, btw.

I'm a poet.

Can we receive the message sent to us by Mozart? By the cave painters in Lascaux? By the guys who built fucking Machu Picchu? By the guys who built this 5,000 years ago? — T Clark

We receive each form of art with different senses, and so presumably with different parts of our brains.

Poetry uses words, which is really problematic because it uses the same vehicles we use in our every day conversations, like the one we're having here. So it's not correct to compare poetry to music, cave paintings, or whatever the fuck Machu Picchu is. If you can speak in music or painting right now, do so; I'll concede the point.

Blank verse is incredible. The rhythm of words freed from the distraction of rhyme allows the poet to explore overlooked corners of language.

I'll take your professional word for it; I'll trade you my layman-poet word. :joke:

when I read Lao Tzu, I am trying to receive the message he sent 2,500 years ago. A message intended to transmit an experience from his mind into mine. — T Clark

As an appreciator of the Tao Te Ching, I'll mention 1) the line between poetry and philosophy for the ancients is more blurred than now, as I know you know. and 2) (as I'm sure you know) translating ancient Chinese to English with any semblance of coherency is no small task. So, already, the odds are against you receiving what the author of the Tao Te Ching might have intended (assuming they intended any single, cogent meaning). There are just so many factors, even just within the interpretation of current English poetry, for instance. I'm not highlighting all of this confusion for the sake of confusion, but just for the sake of an ironic clarity; the clarity that poetry doesn't work clearly. And the Tao Te Ching can't be classified as poetry in the same way that modern English poetry is classified, for us modern English speakers. All we can do is appropriate it to our way of reading what we think of as poetry.

So, in my view, it doesn't matter if we think we're here to pin the caterpillar. We won't do it, regardless of what we think we can do. This isn't nihilistic, or "anti-art"; it actually frees us artists to explore. Now, as to what it is we're exploring...we could begin that conversation once we establish that we can't establish anything concrete, at least not yet...

Right you are, I don't mean that. Per the OP topic, I'm suggesting that what and how poetry expresses changes over time. Because "what" indicates "meaning, structure" and "how" indicates "words", this means everything that constitutes poetry (and any art form) is always in flux, which prevents any grandiose attempts by philosophy to pin the caterpillar under the glass. Again, I'm just typing while I watch baseball; I can sit down and compose something more coherent later, maybe.

It's unclear to me whether there's any traceable metaphysic to Poetry, capital P, because the two main components of poetry, 1) words (and any potential meaning ascribed to them) and 2) any given poetic structure, both change constantly over time. Even when we read the Sufis, we're reading an interpretation (to say the least); we're not reading the poetry as it was written. We're looking at JPEG's of Mona Lisa.

None of this is to say that some metaphysic of Poetry doesn't exist, but if it does, it's at best apprehended by the poet at the time of writing and possibly at no other time, but probably not by readers, and certainly not by dilettante philosophers hundreds of years later. Just off the top of my head; I probably missed some things.

There's a pretty comprehensive thread on NDE's here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1

Yes.

You seem a bit drunk on having received any responses to your millions of threads. I don't know, maybe just calm down, eat some fruit or something.

Great Satriani clip, by the way! — Prishon

Was it, though?

If art is a science because, for instance, it involves certain ways of knowing - knowledge being what science translates into - and science is an art because, for instance, it involves intuitive faculties - which are requisite in the making of most hypotheses - then all artists are scientists and all scientists artists.

Do the plebian-removed philosophers not see the absurdity in this conclusion? — javra

Threads like this wouldn't exist if they did.

Also, I claim Plebeian-Removed as a future band name.

Which artist is expressing F=ma?

I'm of the persuasion that what art is and what it does changes so much over time that it becomes difficult to talk about art in a concrete form. It's easiest to understand "art" through the lens of the current zeitgeist, or one's personal, idiosyncratic lens, if you're out of touch with the zeitgeist. It's compounded by the fact that art from past centuries not only influences artists today, but their perception of what art is, as projected unto the art of the past, influences how they create now. It's a mess.

The artwork is there, before you, as objective as a rock. — Banno

But what it expresses is not. What it expresses is as much the audience's interpretation as it is the artist's attempt to express something. Hence,

art expresses something about human subjective experience — Noble Dust

Science expresses the human subjective experience. — Banno

Would science describe my experience of stubbing my toe as different than yours? Do the physics of my toe work differently than yours?

Art uses the five senses. — Banno

And science describes how they work, to the best of science's understanding.

Don't be condescending; that'd be an improvement.

Think about the methods of making art and what purpose, if any, it serves, and vice versa (the same about science).

The definitions of art and science have changed over the centuries, but in modern terms, art expresses something about human subjective experience, while science describes the world of the 5 senses. Science may benefit from creative thinking, but that doesn't make it an art form.

What I want to know is how Joe Satriani can be so self important as to think that Chris Martin has ever even listened to Satriani before, let alone rip off this song:

I think I just have a higher tolerance for strange people with strange views. I get the clutter thing, but he did attempt to explain himself when you challenged him on his weirdness.

I always forget this is one of my favorite songs of all time. Listen all the way through (as always)

:down: