OL' CHANTY - Chanticleer Magazine Online
  • Home
  • "News-Flash"
  • Magazine
  • Beer Mystic
  • Blog
  • Film Blog
  • CONTACT PAGE
  • Archive 0 - October, 2009
  • Archive 1 - January, 2010
  • Archive 2 - April, 2010
  • Archive 3 - July, 2010
  • Archive 4 - October, 2010
  • Archive 5 - January, 2011
  • Archive 6 - April, 2011
  • Archive 7 - July, 2011
  • Archive 8 - October, 2011
  • Archive 9 - January, 2012
  • Archive 10 - April, 2012
  • Archive 11 - July, 2012
  • Archive 12 - October, 2012
  • Archive 13 - January, 2013
  • Archive 14 - April, 2013
  • Archive 15 - July, 2013
  • Archive 16 - December, 2013
  • Archive 17 - April, 2014
  • Archive 18 - July 2014
  • Archive 19 - October 2014
  • Archive 20 - January 2015
  • Archive 21 - April 2015
  • Archive 22 - July 2015
  • Archive 23 - October 2015
  • Archive 24 - January 2016
  • Archive 25 December 2016
    • Archive 26 - Feb. 2017

January 18th, 2015

1/18/2015

5 Comments

 

SOMETHING ABOUT POETRY

I am going to write something about poetry for a change, about ideas, imagery, rhyme, metre and  a number of other things connected to the subject, because sometimes it seems to me that we have forgotten things that are important - such as the fact that poetry has both physical and ideational dimensions which are often overlooked in our discussions about it. By physical, I mean that it shares something with music; it isn’t just words; its words are akin to notes on a scale. Yet, it is also words. And these words serve the function that words have in speech – namely conveying not just meaning, but also feeling and emotion, those background aspects of speech which make it emphatic or nuanced or visceral or persuasive or ironical or tender or whatever it is that puts its ideational content across to us. A poem in other words is a physical thing in the world as well as something which conveys ideas and feelings. When Mallarme said poetry was not composed of ideas but words to Degas who thought he could write poetry because he had plenty of ideas, I assume he was adverting to this physical dimension. All utterance is embedded somehow in a universe which is physical, even if it is not only physical, but also connected to ideas – because, in fact, poetry cannot be completely divorced from ideas. By ideas I do not mean static concepts of the understanding, but simply those annoying things which float in and out of your mind and which sometimes need to be pinned down and rendered serviceable to discourse.

What is physical in poetry comes from the voice. Paul Valery coined the phrase “Voice in action”, for the voice in poetry doesn’t just exist in space, creating vibrations in the air which ripple through the three dimensions of space; it also exists in time and undergoes a temporal unfolding, following a trajectory through time, which of course is not divorced from its occupancy of space. So poems exist in space-time; they don’t just exist in the head. Indeed a poem’s ability to exist in space-time for longer than it takes to read it depends very much on the way its physical space-time properties generate sufficient pleasure for us to want to repeat it and install it in our ‘memory-banks’. Which implies a kind of seamless continuity between the physical and mental aspects of poetry in relation to that organisms which is ourselves. Of course, none of this can be divorced from its meaning or ideational content. In fact, it is this coming together into a unity of its different ontological aspects which makes poetry a force to be reckoned with. So much so, in fact, that the Pentagon has issued a warning against it. “Poetry presents a special risk to national security because of its content and format.”

The real question however is how this unity of many apparently diverse ontological realms comes into being in poetry. How can the ideational fuse with the physical in such an intimate way? Personally, I don’t think this has anything to do with the rather overblown ‘art’ of poetry. It is not just a technical accomplishment; it is an ontological one; it pre-exists technique. Technique is what follows on from a much deeper level of fusion. Nothing special about this. This deeper level of fusion in fact operates everywhere. The apparent division between the mental and the physical is an illusory one, a product of the way we perceive things and divide them a la Descartes into separate spheres for the operational convenience of thought – especially in realms like the empirical sciences. The table is hard, therefore it doesn’t think. Well, of course it doesn’t think, but does that mean it is so radically different from ourselves? The universe wasn’t constructed from inert building blocks, then sent on its way for these inert building-blocks to  interactwith each other in random ways to produce brains like ours capable of supporting thought. It embodies the principle of self-organisation at a fundamental level; and, although this principle operates in a vastly more complex way in ourselves, it is not alien to the rest of the universe. So if the physical and the ideational can fuse in an apparently miraculous way in poetry, it is because poetry itself encapsulates a universal principle working throughout the whole of nature and is itself only one particular expression of that principle. Another is ourselves and our sojourn through life and yet another is the self-organisation at work in atoms and molecules, and also in organic life-forms.

So poetry has an ideational content, but this ideational content takes on a physical form, not because we consciously weld them together, but because that’s just how it comes into being.. Form and content emerge together and are not separate from each other in poetry. This reference to form inevitably brings us to such purely ‘technical’ questions as rhyme or metre. Is it a question of Thou Shalt Rhyme or Though Shalt Not? And likewise with metre? My answer can only be, “Well it really depends on the poem.” Because the physical form of the poem emerges with its ideational content, there are no pre-existing thou shalts and thou shalt nots to be obeyed. After all, it is not the poet who sets the agenda, but the poem and what that poem needs to be a good poem adequate to itself and the promise within it. The rest is dogma. The poet only lends his or her services to the poem as it is emerging from his or her pen. Personally, just as I have never written a poem simply at will, I have never been able to dictate to the poem I’m writing what form it should arrive in – whether it should rhyme or be in free-verse. Usually it begins with a line popping into my head or an idea that I must get down on paper and then I take it from there, exploring the possibilities immanent or pregnant within that beginning. Thus the question of form in poetry can’t be divorced from content, for it is no more than the physical expression of it in the world.

By ideational content, I do not mean merely intellectual ideas. Poetic ideas are not intellectual and poetic ideas are not supposed to be intellectually but aesthetically satisfying. Nonetheless, poetry may make use of intellectual ideas for its own ends. What is implied by the word ideational include images, symbols, metaphor, metonymy, as well as bare ideas of an intellectual nature. Images are especially important because they anchor poetry to the empirical world. Nevertheless, a transcendental element enters here as well, which raises the poem above the merely empirical. As Paul Valery once put it, what matters is not the image on its own, but the energy of image-formation borrowed from the universe of difference – i.e., different registers operating simultaneously in the poem. It is the successful fusion of these different registers which matters in imagery, not the images themselves. These registers may be intellectual, emotional, visual, aural and so on. That is to say that the energy contained in images derives not just from the empirical realm, but also the transcendental realm of ideas conveyed by them, along with the emotions and feeling-tones they express. Needless to say, images convey this ideational content much more succinctly than if you had to explain in prose.

I am being Kantian here when I talk of a transcendental element in poetry. I am not being Emersonian. I am merely referring to the fact that the synthesis poetry arrives at is one which includes ideas and transcends the realm of merely empirical association. However, in a poem, these transcendental ideas are not simply creatures of the mind. They come from the body as well, especially the voice - though you also might like to gesticulate or dance to it. These two elements act in harmony together to produce something whose potency depends on the fusing of different registers.

As for the question of the ideational content itself, it is always impossible to determine it beforehand. There are no a priori criteria here. Everything is after the fact (of the poem), not before it. Poets are not thinking machines churning out work to a programme. They live in the moment, often blindly feeling their way through the maze of contingencies life happens to throw in their way, reacting to situations here, responding to stimulae there, without ever being able to find a more than provisional solution - outside the poem that is. This of course is not just true of their private lives; it also has a public dimension. Furthermore, the ideational content of a poem is never devoid of some kind of feeling tone, which may be as facetious as it may be melancholic or ecstatic. So the ideas we are talking about here, whether implicit or explicit, are not simply intellectual ideas. In fact, the very term “ideational”, is one I have lifted from Freud, who connected it with his theory of the Unconscious. In other words, the ideational content of a poem is invariably charged with certain affects emerging from an encounter with the Unconscious. Of course, a poem which is charged with unconscious affects will encounter resistances among certain readers. For example, a homophobic person will respond negatively to a poem which has a certain homo-erotic content. And this will be the case no matter how good it is. If its ideational content is unsettling to someone, the response to it will never be neutral. The important thing is what the poem embodies as a total response to the world which includes unconscious impulses and stimulae. After all, as I have said, poetry does not emerge from conscious intent. It knocks – sometimes gently, sometimes rudely - on the door of consciousness and insists on being let in.

5 Comments

January 11th, 2015

1/11/2015

1 Comment

 

From Freud To Jung

It has been said somewhere or other that one gravitates towards Freud when one is younger and towards Jung as one ages. I don’t know much about that, but it could perhaps explain my own recent trajectory.

When I was young I certainly gravitated towards Freud rather than Jung. Freud seemed to me to be knottier, and when you had unravelled one knot, you discovered another. His ideas too had a more tragic bent to them; that is to say, that he recognised that people limitations did not come from outside, but themselves and there was in the end no overcoming them. You just had to fatalistically accept them. Furthermore, Freud’s ideas evolved from being those of a doctor who was more concerned with the therapeutic possibilities implicit in our encounter with the unconscious legacies of our own childhoods to a poet who developed a whole meta-psychology rooted very much in mythopoeic images such as the conflict between Eros and Thanatos, which I was well able to relate to. The ideas expressed in The Ego And The Id and Civilisation And Its Discontents definitely had poetic elements in them as well, or at least elements that were serviceable to poetry. On top of all this, his ideas helped spawn surrealism and also many highly divergent variations on Freudian themes – especially on the left. His influence on thinkers like Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, the Frankfurt School, Deleuze and Guattari, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Zizek and many others is quite explicit. Whether these thinkers agreed with Freud or not, ‘Continental Philosophy’ would definitely not be what it is today had Freud never existed.

Jung was a different matter I thought. If you have a look at Jungians themselves, you will see that unlike Freudians with Freud, they don’t seem to treat Jung very much as a problem and there has certainly been little revisionism among them. They seem to see Jung as some kind of saviour or prophet and this fact seems to impose a uniformity on a lot of their shared ideas. It seems to me that Jung really has only one big idea, whereas Freud has many and these tend to lend themselves to various interpretations. Jungianism seems more monolithic, less fractured than Freudianism. Apart from this I inclined towards Freud because his ideas were more intrinsically hostile to religion, which Freud himself described as the “obsessional neurosis of mankind”. Jung on the other hand seemed to want to create a new religion on the fragments of old religions, a religion in which he almost seemed to see himself as some kind of saviour. Freud’s fundamentally tragic outlook on our possibilities tends to discourage talk of religious solutions which rely too much on positive answers to questions for which there can, in the nature of things, be none. For this reason I gravitated towards Freud, and, though I have moved somewhat in a Jungian direction, there are definitely aspects of Freud that I want to hold on to.

However, I am not blind towards Freud’s own limitations – especially his reductionism. Furthermore, I prefer Jung’s phylogenetic to Freud’s ontogenetic emphasis. Jung sees things more in terms of our species-being as opposed to our individual existences, where our complexes are seen to be rooted in repressed childhood dramas. Jung was onto something I believe with his ideas about the Collective Unconscious and its Archetypes. His ideas were more holistic than reductionist and that was reason enough to take him seriously, without altogether turning my back on Freud. If Jungianism and Freudianism don’t seem to be very compatible, I don’t see that as an excuse to choose between them. Just go with one as far as it takes you and go with the other as far as it takes you, without trying to reconcile the differences between them. For me, it’s not a question of choosing one or the other, but rather of recognising that they are, as Wittgenstein might have put it, playing different language-games. In other words, it’s like two different explorers exploring two different territories; you don’t expect someone who is exploring the Amazon to arrive at the same place as someone exploring Antarctica. And the fact that they both set off from Southampton doesn’t make any real difference to that.

In his attempts to deepen and enrich psychological enquiry after Freud, Jung explored such phenomena as Alchemy, Shamanism, Mythology, Ritual, Gnosticism, Anthropology, Ethnology, Esoteric Religion, (Kabbalah, Sufism, etc.), Mysticism and human culture in general. He has taken the plunge into areas which Freud stayed well clear of. If Freud touched upon any of these areas, it was in the reductionist manner of his ideas about the Primal Horde, which he wanted to adapt to his theories about the Oedipus Complex. Jung and the Jungians took these things much more seriously and approached them from a more empirical point of view to identify and draw out the features common to all human cultures which would allow him to draw certain conclusions about them. Whether he was right or wrong is not for me to say, but I think his efforts were certainly worthwhile. Unlike Freud, he did not try to force the facts to fit the theories. Rather, he took things as he found them and went on from there, moving from the empirical to what we might call the transcendental – in the Kantian sense of the word. That’s what Freud attempted to do as well, but, like Hegel, Freud cheated by starting off with the theory, which the facts then had to fit. Maybe Jung did a little bit of that too, but in nowhere near as blatant a fashion. 

Jung’s ‘big idea’ was the Collective Unconscious and their Archetypes, which he extrapolated from the evidence as he found and interpreted it. In this way, he moved from the empirical facts – the myths, rituals, etc. – to what he believed was universal about them – the archetypes underlying them. These archetypes, he postulated, had become inscribed in our genetic make-up. He even spoke of the two million year old man – and I suppose woman - in all of us, an idea which clearly has something in common with those of sociobiologists like Edward O. Wilson, although I suspect it is rather less crudely reductionist. It is this aspect of Jungianism which has come to intrigue me – especially in regard to its application to such practices as poetry.

Archetypes are difficult phenomena to fully explain, because, like Kant’s unknowable thing-in-itself, they don’t have any definite shape. They simply lie behind their various manifestations as symbols, images, ideas and concepts, all of which have a definite form, unlike the archetypes themselves. Indeed, Jung saw these things in hierarchical terms, moving from the least explicit – archetypes – to the most explicit - concepts, depending on how conscious one has become of them. Concepts should not be equated with ideas, which are much more free-floating and difficult to pin down – like thoughts in general, which come and go almost at will. Concepts are fixed and have a definite place in the understanding. But they are, of course, also abstractions and don’t carry any of the unconscious charge which images and ideas might do. Archetypes begin to find expression through images and symbols and then work up through ideas to concepts. And according to Jung, if this process of articulation from unconscious archetypes to fully conscious concepts is thwarted dissociation occurs. In modern cultures, according to Jungians, this dissociation is apparently complete. We are still unconsciously influenced by archetypes but we have denied ourselves the means of making them conscious and therefore rendering them rather less toxic. The shamanistic practices of so called primitive peoples enabled them to stay more in contact with their own unconscious well-springs, while our overly rational cultures are highly fragmented and in desperate need of more integration. The process by which this integration occurs  Jung called the Individuation Process.

The Jungian Individuation Process looks a bit paradoxical on the surface, but we shouldn’t let that deter us. According to my dictionary, to individuate is to individualise, to give individuality to. This doesn’t seem very compatible with the idea of getting in touch with something as collective as the Jungian unconscious. But for Jung and his followers, the individuation process does not involve becoming overwhelmed by the Collective Unconscious – although such regression is what often happens during Shamanic vision-quests and also in Jungian therapeutic practice – so much as approaching the unconscious from the point of view of the ego and consciousness and becoming aware of its contents so that they are less able to overcome one. It involves strengthening the ego through greater familiarity with these archetypal contents, as they arise from the deeper reaches of the psyche, so that they can be more effectively dealt with.

This doesn’t mean that you can become directly conscious of the archetypes which shape your behaviour. That would be a contradiction in terms, since, by definition, what is unconscious cannot at the same time be conscious. The archetypes themselves are simply kinds of energy-fields, rooted in instinct, which impinge on consciousness in various indirect ways through images, symbols and ideas which receive a charge from these energy-fields. It’s a bit like a magnet and iron filings which don’t take shape without there being a barrier (like a piece of paper) between them. That barrier here is consciousness itself, which is forever cut off from the unconscious and can only become conscious of the unconscious from its effects. That is to say, that you can only become conscious of it from the impact it has on the medium of conscious thought itself, first through images, then through those amalgams of images and ideas called symbols (which, unlike allegorical ‘symbols’ are not conceptual at all), then ideas themselves and finally concepts. As concepts tend to be fixed they lose their power to express anything outside of the intellect and so must be constantly renewed from deeper sources of the psyche. They may add to our rational understanding, but they cease to speak for the whole person. One can therefore never rest on one’s conceptual laurels as far as the ongoing process of individuation is concerned.

The process I have tried to sketch here – however inadequately, since it is, after all, a huge subject with many side-branches – has a great deal of relevance for poetry. Poets who rely almost exclusively on rational consciousness become sterile as their work becomes increasingly cut off from its unconscious source of inspiration. A lot of Coleridge’s work is like this, I suspect, as is Pope’s Essay On Man. The intellect cannot stand in for the whole visceral person sounding out the depths of his or her psyche when he or she is summoned to do so. Poetry loses an essential aspect of its dynamic when that happens. And it should be remembered that these unconscious elements are transpersonal, even trans-human, which perhaps explains a lot of the theriomorphic (animal) elements common to both shamanistic practices and to poetry. Animals live unconsciously, at the same kind of level – according to Jung. They have always had a special significance for us because of that. In a sense animals are where it’s at, because animals are where we are at – down in the depths of our species-being. And I do not mean this in a sentimental way. Animals – like the gods – tend to be pitiless; they are not human and we shouldn’t forget that. However, our ‘progress’ from animal to human has come at a cost and perhaps we shouldn’t forget that either. One of Nietzsche’s gripes about Euripides is the way he humanised such savage dramas as The Bacchai and bought a superficial ‘civilised’ element to something deeply primordial.

Another aspect of this concerns the Individuation Process itself. We seem to live in an age when what is prized and cultivated in poetry has little to do with the individuality at the heart of a poet’s work. What is prized is a kind of sameness or flatness, a landscape of conformity to certain poetic norms or conventions where each takes their measure from everyone else – or what Heidegger called “The They”, which squats on individuality like an enormous frog and attempts to suffocate it. In this atmosphere, as Heidegger puts it, everything primordial is dismissed as if it was something that has long been well-known. Perhaps this is the point at which Jung and Heidegger converge, since it is precisely the primordial which lies at the heart of the Collective Unconscious and precisely our encounter with it, which sets us on the road to individuation. Of course, in this process one risks regression to chaos and madness, but that is sometimes the price one must pay on the way to integration, according to Jung. It is this stress which has to be prized in Jung. It doesn’t matter if he developed something of a messianic persona. His own ideas could easily account for them and he was not perfect or free of his own daemons. Nor does it matter that a school emerged from his endeavours and that school was no less partisan, sectarian and dogmatic than the one Freud himself spawned. What matters for poets is the fact that the only way to deepen poetry and make it more universal is, ‘paradoxically’ by advancing the Individuation Process within it.

 

1 Comment

    Author

    Richard Livermore is a poet, who also edits Ol' Chanty. 

    Archives

    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    February 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    September 2013
    August 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.