I don't really write poetry but do play around writing with a magnetic poetry kit — Jack Cummins

You have so many toys Jack, I'm green with envy.

I used to illustrate a poetry magazine — Jack Cummins

Jack, a man of many talents. We're lucky you're not on some other planet.

Wittgenstein — Jack Cummins

I don't get him but that's because I haven't read him according to @Banno & @180 Proof. There's still hope for me it seems. :smile:

playing with language is central to poetry — Jack Cummins

A man's maturity is to have rediscovered the seriousness he possessed as a child at play. — Friedrich Nietzsche

"Play" is too frivolous; "Study" is too sedate. What's the right word, in your esteemed opinion, for playful study? "Experiment"? I dunno.

if poetry contains an authentic metaphysics, how can it be evidenced?" — Gus Lamarch

If poetry contains a metaphysics , then do prose literature, visual art, music ,scientific and political
discourse also contain their own authentic metaphysics? If not, then what is it about poetry that distinguishes it from all other modes of creative expression?

Isnt it the case that it is the particular CONTENT conveyed by any of the innumerable modes of cultural expression within an era ( including poetry) that manifests a mataphysics? For instance , if one were to delimit a cultural history of poetry in the West, would one not be able to correlate the changes in the way poets considered their craft over the centuries with changes in metaphysical outlook? Doesn’t classical Greek poetry reflect a different metaphysical thinking than the poetry of the Renaissance or the Modern or postmodern eras?

Reading Wittgenstein has been on my 'to do' list for a long time, but, somehow, other writers seem to keep winning my attention first. Often, I am drawn to the more obscure writers rather than those that everyone reads.

I think that we all need more play, fantasy and toys. The psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott, spoke of teddy bears as an important aspect in play as 'transitional objects' in forming symbolic ideas and the sharing of ideas with others. My mother has about 100 and they all have names and wear clothes. She used to act in theatre, so she encouraged me to play a lot. You may not have so many toys, but you have an office, which is what I probably need more than any new toys.

But, I do believe that playfulness and fantasy is essential to the creative process in art and poetry. This is especially true in art therapy. I believe that writing, including poetry and philosophy can be so therapeutic. There is the issue of metaphysics of poetry but there is also philosophy as a form of creative writing.

This is a really good post about something I've been thinking about for a while. I need to put some thought into my response. I'll be back.

I reckon the link between metaphysics and poetry can be found in the urge to be, well, poetic. Under what circumstances, sensing which emotions, thinking which thoughts, being in whose presence or sensing whose absence, and so on, does one feel an urgent need to compose poems? The answer to this question might furnish vital clues as to which metaphysical concern is poetic in quality.

From the few poems I've read - quite a long time ago I'm afraid - there doesn't seem to be any domain of human experience that strongly correlates with the wish to pen poems, long or short. Any topic is game for a bard.

Ergo, likely that poets don't have an agenda i.e. they aren't confined to a specific topic, metaphysical or otherwise.

Nevertheless, though the metaphysics of poetry is not to be found in its contents, it can be found in the irresistable desire to poeticize. To want to express oneself in verse rather than prose, in a certain sense, at some level, is actually a sign that the person (the poet) wishes to break free from the shackles of reason, its unforgiving rigor, and enter a world of fuzzy and yet relatable imagery, a world where the goal is to make you feel (heart) the truth rather than comprehend (mind) it.

It's obvious then that as the subject of interest is as fundamental and obscure as metaphysics, the poetic instinct should peak/max out. Is it that metaphysics is poetry?

Is God a mathematician?

Is God a poet?

I'll leave you to connect the dots.

An unusually good book on poetry, Creating Poetry, John Drury. Here:

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Poetry-John-Drury/dp/1582974632/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=john+drury&qid=1630606114&s=books&sr=1-1

and here:

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-home-_-Results&kn=&an=&tn=creating+poetry&isbn=

This seems to be relevant. Only skimmed over but eyes opened a bit wide.
Too tired to pick out nuggets and comment. Perhaps others who are more awake...

Abstract
In order to better understand the worth of aesthetic experience in encountering poetry, fresh perspectives are helpful. This paper introduces the reader to modern stylistics: that is linguistic examinations of the 'speaker's meaning' in literature and notes such 'scientific' approaches to poetry do find common metaphysical ground with leading cultural figures such as theatre director Peter Brook, philosopher critic Martha C. Nussbaum and poet critic Seamus Heaney. — Stylistics and the Metaphysics of Poetry

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235918964_Stylistics_and_the_Metaphysics_of_Poetry

Give me an example of "life is [both] ugly...good poets tell it like it is" — TheMadFool

Out Out by Robert Frost

The buzz-saw snarled and rattled in the yard
And made dust and dropped stove-length sticks of wood,
Sweet-scented stuff when the breeze drew across it.
And from there those that lifted eyes could count
Five mountain ranges one behind the other
Under the sunset far into Vermont.
And the saw snarled and rattled, snarled and rattled,
As it ran light, or had to bear a load.
And nothing happened: day was all but done.
Call it a day, I wish they might have said
To please the boy by giving him the half hour
That a boy counts so much when saved from work.
His sister stood beside them in her apron
To tell them “Supper.” At the word, the saw,
As if to prove saws knew what supper meant,
Leaped out at the boy’s hand, or seemed to leap—
He must have given the hand. However it was,
Neither refused the meeting. But the hand!
The boy's first outcry was a rueful laugh,
As he swung toward them holding up the hand
Half in appeal, but half as if to keep
The life from spilling. Then the boy saw all—
Since he was old enough to know, big boy
Doing a man’s work, though a child at heart—
He saw all spoiled. “Don’t let him cut my hand off—
The doctor, when he comes. Don’t let him, sister!”
So. But the hand was gone already.
The doctor put him in the dark of ether.
He lay and puffed his lips out with his breath.
And then—the watcher at his pulse took fright.
No one believed. They listened at his heart.
Little—less—nothing!—and that ended it.
No more to build on there. And they, since they
Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs.

You wouldn't be asking for examples if you had read much good poetry.

I would say there is no particular metaphysics of poetry, although poetry may have its metaphysical musings and allusions no doubt.

And there I was,
without a net or a circus.

Confident in the findings,
like grasping an old spoon to manage soup that was not served.

The banquet will begin, with or without me.

You wouldn't be asking for examples if you had read much good poetry. — Janus

I wouldn't say the poem you posted is great but it does get your point across. I read only one poem by Robert Frost - Stopping by woods on a snowy evening - and it really resonated with me at a deep level, I can still recall, albeit only vaguely now, the vivid images of evergreen pines and whitest snow it used to evoke in my young mind.

I stand corrected!

That said, the poem you were so kind to post romanticizes death, no? Its words tend to soften the blow of quietus and makes it more bearable i.e. Robert Frost beautifies grim death and makes it more palatable to our sensibilities. Hence, my statement that poetry is like cosmetics - it, whatever else it does, gives ugliness (here death) a makeover, the horrific becomes less horrific.

I'd call it a good poem if not a great one. I wouldn't say it romanticizes death; I'd say it describes the death of the young man and the indifference of the living dispassionately.

How about this poem by Robinson Jeffers:

SALMON-FISHING
The days shorten, the south blows wide for showers now,
The south wind shouts to the rivers,
The rivers open their mouths and the salt salmon
Race up into the freshet.
In Christmas month against the smoulder and menace
Of a long angry sundown,
Red ash of the dark solstice, you see the anglers,
Pitiful, cruel, primeval,
Like the priests of the people that built Stonehenge,
Dark silent forms, performing
Remote solemnities in the red shallows
Of the river’s mouth at the year’s turn,
Drawing landward their live bullion, the bloody mouths
And scales full of the sunset
Twitch on the rocks, no more to wander at will
The wild Pacific pasture nor wanton and spawning
Race up into fresh water.

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.

I'd call it a good poem if not a great one. I wouldn't say it romanticizes death; I'd say it describes the death of the young man and the indifference of the living dispassionately.

How about this poem by Robinson Jeffers:

SALMON-FISHING
The days shorten, the south blows wide for showers now,
The south wind shouts to the rivers,
The rivers open their mouths and the salt salmon
Race up into the freshet.
In Christmas month against the smoulder and menace
Of a long angry sundown,
Red ash of the dark solstice, you see the anglers,
Pitiful, cruel, primeval,
Like the priests of the people that built Stonehenge,
Dark silent forms, performing
Remote solemnities in the red shallows
Of the river’s mouth at the year’s turn,
Drawing landward their live bullion, the bloody mouths
And scales full of the sunset
Twitch on the rocks, no more to wander at will
The wild Pacific pasture nor wanton and spawning
Race up into fresh water. — Janus

Poems about the dark side of reality are oxymorons: they're good poems about bad stuff that happen to life. The question is, if poetry doesn't do what I said it does - beautify the ugly - why are poems good even though their contents may be explicit on the horrors of life? How is that a good peom can be written about the bad?

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. — Noble Dust

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.

Poems about the dark side of reality are oxymorons: they're good poems about bad stuff that happen to life. The question is, if poetry doesn't do what I said it does - beautify the ugly - why are poems good even though their contents may be explicit on the horrors of life? — TheMadFool

I'm not saying there are no dark poems; would anyone read them, though if there were no beauty in them? My point was that they do not conceal, by glossing over or sugar-coating, the ugly side of life; instead they reveal the beauty that hides in the darkness.

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.

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. — Noble Dust

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).

I guess I'm just saying I don't think there is any necessary connection between music and any particular metaphysical conjectures.

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'm not saying there are no dark poems; would anyone read them, though if there were no beauty in them? My point was that they do not conceal, by glossing over or sugar-coating, the ugly side of life; instead they reveal the beauty that hides in the darkness. — Janus

I'm only surprised by the fact that dark poems (thanks for updating my vocab) can be considered good. The "beauty" that "hides in the darkness"; exactly what I was trying to get at - poetry has managed to, like a good PRO, put a positive spin (beautify) on even the most horrifying and disgusting side to reality. It's a form of self-delusion involving the poet and faer audience.

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

Why all of what is false?

It's not a "spin" though, it is an aesthethic response.

Did you see my edit?

t's not a "spin" though, it is an aesthethic response. — Janus

...said the PRO for poets. Good one!

No, it looks the same. All I can see is you quoting a passage that affirms a couple of things and then a question as to why I think all of "this" is false. Surely you can't be referring to what the passage affirms? But if not, then what?

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?

If you don't like poetry if you see it as merely "spin" then that's your right. But if you don't like it, why talk about it? Surely if it is all spin for you, then it should have no interest for you?

If you don't like poetry if you see it as merely "spin" then that's your right. But if you don't like it, why talk about it? Surely if it is all spin for you, then it should have no interest for you? — Janus

I do enjoy poetry, I have a very poetic personality, sometimes but, that doesn't mean I should allow myself to be led down the garden path without even a modicum of resistance.

Well none of those, in contrast to logic, are discursive phenomena. They are phenomenological phenomena in that to speak about them is to speak about, or more aptly evoke, what the affective side of the mind is like. But phenomenology, like the arts, is not necessarily related to any particular metaphysics (you know the epoche; "bracket the world" and all that). And neither is logic for that matter.

If you think there is a danger that poetry will "lead you down the garden Path" then I think I'll leave you to it.