October 29th, 2011
Timothy Morton’s ambient poetics, part 1
I’m reading Timothy Morton’s Ecology Without Nature, and I have to say I am struggling. The book appears to want to deconstruct the subject-object opposition because in seeing us as here and nature as there is the core of our current situation and part of the s/o dualism posited by Romanticism.
There are lots of things tied up with this view that irritate the frack out of me. Morton’s view of the aesthetic for one. But I’m just going to let that alone for the moment to speak about his concept of ambient poetics.
He has a paper online about the poem “Twinkle, twinkle little star.” Morton posits this poem as one exemplifying ambient poetics. I went online in despair from Ecology Without Nature to try and understand what Morton is really saying and I think maybe I got a clue. (Maybe not, but here goes anyway.)
All through both of his books Morton has been arguing against the subject-object dichotomy as if he’s arguing against something real. I’m having a hard time, I think, because I don’t know what it means to posit such a “thing” as “subject” as “real”.
For me a “subject” is not a thing at all but acts more like a verb. Subjectivity is a process of living that inheres in certain kinds of complex forms (normally thought of as sentient). There isn’t anything to identify. In human beings subjectivity is achieved by numerous life processes occurring in the body/brain acting with/against its locus. In simple terms subjectivity is achieved by the functional body/brain moving around interacting.
The existence of a felt “subject” is a necessary component of the larger subjectivizing being done (mostly without awareness) by they body/brain. The feeling of subject, of being certain of one’s existence, must function as part of the general ability to make aware category decisions. That is, the “I” or the felt subject is just one of the aware categories that the categorization process (thinking) enacts in order to process and manipulate information for the benefit of the being.
There is no more an actual subject corresponding to the felt “I” than there is an actual “walking” corresponding to the verb “to walk.” I mean where does “to walk” go when I stop and sit? Just so, where does the “self” go when I sleep? It’s the same thing.
In the “Twinkle” essay Morton writes:
Why ambient poetry? |
|
|
5
|
One may pose differently the question of the distinction between person and environment: what if people were more like environments? If James Lovelock noted that the weather worked like a person (Lovelock 1-12), why not imagine a person as being like the weather? In other words, perhaps one might deconstruct personhood into ambience, atmosphere, surroundings, dwelling, environment. . . This would provide a more appropriate philosophical view (I am reluctant to say “ontological foundation”) for a deep ecology, an ecology that could assume that a politics of the environment must be coterminous with a change in the view of those who exist in/as that environment. A poetry that articulated the person as environment would not invert anthropocentrism into “ecocentrism,” it would thoroughly undo the notion of a center. |
I read that and it occurred to me that my problem with Morton might be, at least in part, gender and culture. People are environments. Selves are the body’s symbolic “words” for a variety of lived processes, all of which move us through our days.
How can anyone seriously think otherwise? In today’s world of scientific knowledge of the body, the non-living, the material and the profound web of interrelations between all of these various material processes erupting temporarily as the various forms we call the living and the non-living there is not ground at all to even consider a “subject” as anything but a material fiction. A necessary fiction, and one orchestrated by the body and its doings, but a fiction.
|
7
|
“The Star” is both indoors and outdoors, taking apart the difference between feminized interior domestic space and masculinized exterior work space; the comforting implication is that what is outside is also inside—the star peeps through the curtain; the discomforting implication is that what is inside is really just a special instance of the outside—that subjectivity itself is a lonely traveler wandering under the stars. “The Star” succeeds in being both intimate and alien, and thus it is not so much rigidly anti-anthropocentric as it is deconstructively deep-ecological. It enacts a non-essentialist awareness of the interdependence of subject and object, perceiver and perceived: an environmental awareness. |
Here’s where Morton takes on the idea that this is lack of subject is a gendered knowing. Not about women and men, I hasten to say, but really about social placement. If one’s position in life requires the negotiation of liminal spaces, then this kind of liquid approach to subjectivity is called for. So those whose existence requires of them the recognition of others as Other are more likely to construct a sense of subjectivity that slides through the various spaces one must inhabit and transgress in order to make room for an equal (or more powerful) Other. In the society in which I live this is often a skill required of minorities (women being one).
The thing that stopped me is the line in this last section that starts with “the discomforting implication.” Discomforting? That blew me right out of the water. I had to get up and go do laundry to get over it. The idea that my “insides” is just a special case of “outside” is the central joy of my limited mind. It is the most comforting thing I have ever realized. And I don’t find the idea of the processes of creating the sense of subject as at all lonely. The idea that sentience categorizes (creates a symbol) out of its own source just as it creates concepts (other symbols) for anything at all seems to me to be the most profoundly inclusive of all bodily gestures and activities. It’s like I’m playing chess and the “I” is just one piece on the board.
And frack it, I am on the board.
So ambient poetics is a way of writing/reading so that we can become aware of ourselves as multiplicitous, as environments?
I feel like someone whose been reading a book arguing strenuously for the important knowledge that neither the earth nor the sun is at the center of the universe. Is that really what he’s saying?
I must have missed something. Somewhere. Can you tell me?
August 1st, 2011
who are you on the net?
There is a rather nice interview here.
A pseudonymous contributor (whether author or commenter) has a history attached to a particular name, which turns out to be a different name than they use on, say, their passport. An anonymous contributor (author or commenter) lacks the history; they do not use their passport name, but do not have a stable identity. Either of these could be a troll. A troll (etymologically, from “trolling”, the fishing technique) posts or comments with a goal of stirring a hornets’ nest, rather than contributing to a discussion.
Sometimes I wonder about trolls, or about who qualifies. I mean if someone drops a magnesium comment into a stream of water, and the commenter is just dumber than two short planks, then does that person really qualify as a troll? I think there does have to be intent behind the comment as Digital Cuttlefish suggests. And is being a troll so bad? Sometimes I think a troll is just someone who disagrees with the mainstream (what ever stream that is in the moment) and isn’t afraid to drop the magnesium pellet because there is some protection in distance. Sometimes a troll is just someone who makes it a point to make obvious the problems with or illogic attendant upon cherished beliefs. That certainly acts as an incendiary device. And those flame wars that erupt after a troll does drop his load? Who’s dumber — the pellet dropper or the people acting with no more intelligence or will than a stream of water?
Who are you on the net?
July 1st, 2011
Images of self, poetry and the mind
Give me a little slack here if you would be so kind. This connection may be a bit tenuous.
I’ve been reading Reuven Tsur and I’m going to admit that it feels a bit like I’ve stuck my head in a whirlwind. I read a few pages and there is just so much that I have to go away and walk to let it settle a little. But it’s a wonderfully aromatic, soft-fingered twist of air and so I pick up the book again.
Pictures are by Natsumi Hayashi. Google her name, she’s a sensation. Brought to my attention (thankyou!) by peardg.
The little bit of Tsur I want to connect with Natsumi Hayashi’s “Levitating” pictures comes from the chapter “Composition of Place”, Experiential Set, and the Meditative Poem. How we compose space, he asserts, either helps us surrender that wonderful sense of control so as to achieve a more meditative state or it hinders. And it is surrender. We must voluntarily blur the edges of self so as to achieve the sense of connection that comes in meditative (or meditative like) states. Tsur’s chapter is about how words can do that.
Solidity of objects, of description, enable a sense of control. Edges are of immediate comfort to the rational aspect of mind. What blurs self is indeterminacy. Now that shouldn’t be a surprise given the last nearly 100 years of European history. What is really lovely about Tsur’s work is that he connects the way the human brain works with words and their power.
The brain orients us with a fork. The left-brain tine
is responsible for creating the mental sensation of a limited, physically defined body, while the right orientation area is associated with generating the sense of spatial coordinates that provide the matrix in which the body can be oriented. In simpler terms, the left orientation area creates the brain’s spatial sense of self, while the right side creates the physical space in which that self can exist. (Why God Won’t Go Away)
So, (way too simply) what you do with words is create the space in which the self can exist whilst suppressing things that lead to edges and to the self itself. Concentrate, for example, on “the surrounding space, but focus on thing-free and gestalt-free entities (such as abstractions) rather than on stable characteristic visual shapes.” (Tsur’s chapter has many examples of this at work.)
Have you ever had that experience where, traveling slowly through a sere landscape you can feel it pulling you apart, your sense of boundaries wavering, the land reaching in under the hem of your being? That’s those two orientation areas at work, and the continual flow of environmental clues necessary for the left hemisphere to continuously generate your sense of self stuttering.
That’s what Natsumi achieves in her photographs. Brilliant.
So much of the self’s generation is dependent upon things remaining stable, and flying, well that’s not a stable reality for human beings. The specifics of what such a form of instability says about Natsumi’s culture and place within it, well that is also really interesting. It makes me think of my experience recently at the grocery store. One wonderful thing about all this angst-producing cultural deconstruction of the last 100 years is that it enables these moments of meditative seeking for new boundaries. And Wallace Stevens was right, there will be a new set of gods. They will take on the shapes of our new ideas about self, limits and purposes. We’re not there yet but there are moments in art when on the artist’s heels a new shape can just be glimpsed. That is so cool.

June 29th, 2011
identity, poetry and Shawna Lemay
Since I had that wonderfully interesting experience at the grocery store, I’ve been turning over the question of identity. In the comments I said something about all of us having multiple identities, and of course this seems to me obviously true. There are many Mary’s for example. There’s the one that does the dishes in the morning, the one making coffee and chatting with the crows, there’s the one that reads poetry, devours poetics, goes out to dinner… None of these Marys are the same. If I were to take a mental snapshot of each woman there would be real differences in thought, mental content, attitude, behaviour and the other categories by which we know who we are. Aren’t those differences the mark of difference? Is the Rez-Mary, the thrift-store Mary, the same Mary as the one who talks with friends about Reuven Tsur? They differ so much that even their relative vocabularies cannot reconcile.
Pondering these fun things, then, through one of those lovely internet connection moments, I come to hear of Shawna Lemay (Thanks Pat!). She’s a poet and essayist with a number of books available. I managed to fine Blue Feast in short order and I start to read the book this evening after dinner. It became quickly clear that, amongst other things, Lemay has some questions about what it means to be someone. I love it it when synchronicities like that happen.
Listen:
The Masterpiece Where are You? I woke up asking that to the ceiling. Is this blasphemous, I don't believe that god should be capitalized. It's not necessary. I know this much. The masterpiece is unsigned.
I have to tell you that got my attention. Apart from the question of some possible literal belief (which really isn’t a very important question, and can probably be answered by the simple act of more reading), there is the question of what constitutes the “masterpiece” and why it must be unsigned.
Since poetry works by linking single words to multiple possible concepts/feelings, the masterpiece is something with multiple forms and identities. It could be simultaneously the poet, the poem, the reader, the meaning generated in the interstices between the poet, the poem and the reader, and any number of other frames. OK. So multiple identities…why anon?
Is multiplicity finally anonymity? Does this unknown quality free up the dark to speak? to create? Is it good enough that the anon is a “You”? The fact that “You” is capitalized seems to suggest that the being isn’t god, since that capitalization isn’t necessary. So a “who” then and not a “what”. I guess for me sometimes I sense my self more in whats than whos. That is, a mountain, the space between ridges, a river, these are identifiers that carry some sense of “me”. But this is only one poem, so as I read more, this idea of the “You” and the anon will probably gain more depth, and possibly take on more solidity. But then perhaps not, because of multiplicity is a fact of life and it is tied with anonymity, identity is going to be more a shadow than a source of light.
One of the other themes I’m glad to come across in the book is that of dreaming. (If you’ve read in this blog before, you’ll know why.)
Here’s another poem that latched on hard:
Not Once But twice. I was emptied, shelled from a dream into the dead of last night. I had no questions. Was it more like being rolled into a ditch from a slow moving car? Or was it like falling out of an apple tree fruit untasted, hungry, plucked. These came later. Then, it was just the scraped out feeling sitting on my chest purring its otherworldly breath entering my open mouth. Knowing I had to quickly eat the curdled dream placenta or sleep would never come for me nor serenity.
So the shadow thing makes sense. If the world of “I” has its locus in the dream world, then it is in the dark and identity is a cipher whose meaning is multi-vocal and we — we have ears that hear only a fraction of the voices rung in the dark hills of night.
A concept of self like this feels like a woman gathering feathers in a wind storm. Identity such as this is a dark thing, a creature with a thousand legs that all walk in varying directions. It’s also an interesting thing. Actually, this is how I imagine Rilke felt, and other poets of similar mind and reactions to the problems of living.
Me, if I were to wake from a dream like this, having lost the words, images, even the memory, I would just ask my body, because I would assume that my muscles know, or my fingers. I would bead and see what came out, or walk and pay attention to the cadence of my feet, and somewhere in there, somewhere in the world, the dream would be laid out, sunning itself and grinning.
Once I asked an elder to identify knickknick for me so I would know. She started to shake with laughter. I was bewildered at first, but it turns out I was standing on it. I was only in the dark as long as I kept my feet still.
So for me identity is like that – all laid out in the world, but some of it, I have to move to see.
Isn’t poetry wonderful? I have so many fun things to think about and I haven’t even finished the first book. Thanks Ms Lemay.
June 9th, 2011
the question of who one is
Over at Lilian’s place she mentioned that she might nominate Annie Proulx as one her heroes. That got me thinking, since I adored Proulx’s book Close Range. To make a longish story something more net-friendly, what I did was starting reading and came upon this rather telling interview.
The bit that really caught my attention was this:
I do feel that I have a fair idea of what we are writing about. We’re still in the grip of the interior novel — the first-person remembrance of a childhood in a difficult or coming-of-age situation — and the family novel. It will probably be many years before we’re done with them.
My first reaction was to think, so what other kinds of novels does she envision when she thinks of a post-interior/family story world?
And as I moved about my morning, thinking about it, it became clear that I see this fixation on the interior/family novel as saying something about the set of philosophical assumptions we make about what it means to be who one is. That is, those assumptions (the idea of what the self is, for example – or even that “a” self exists) come into play when one asks a question like “who am I”. The assumptions form the hills and valleys of our lives, and our familial conventions pave the roads over which we traverse the terrain. (Gives a whole new, and less exalted, meaning to the concept of being a maverick who takes the “road less traveled.” So what. It is still a road paved by convention on a terrain created out of the group’s sub-conscious and unquestioned assumptions.)
Of course we are obsessed by the idea that one explores one’s self through one’s interior. What other choice is there, one might ask. That is what we have been taught. We are all, in that sense, phenomenologists.
As an alternative, what if we had been trained through the assumptions inherent in geomancy? Then one would explore the question of who one is by exploring the land over which one actually moves and not the interior imaginative land created under the conditions of an operative spatial conceptual metaphor. And that got me thinking about Henry Real Bird’s poetry – he is what I would call a geomancer.
Another thing I’d like to know: how does a geomancer effectively communicate with a phenomenologist?
April 27th, 2011
the power of biographers & Dorothy Wordsworth, part 1
—I’m reading Frances Wilson’s The Ballad of Doroth Wordsworth, which I heard about over at Tales From the Reading Room. Oh my goodness.
It’s a wonderful book that actually deserves it cover blurb by Oliver Sacks— “A beautiful, deep and humble study of incredibly complex people.” (Have you noticed how many times those blurbs don’t really relate to the text at all?)
Before I started Wilson’s book, I’d read William’s Prelude, (etc. etc.), and anthologized bits of Dorothy’s. The first bit of her journalling I ever read was the bit on daffodils from the Grasmere notebook. She took me by storm, I have to admit, whereas William’s ego always niggled at me. Now I know that he’s an amazing poet; there are scenes from his work that will always linger, but there is also an antisceptic quality, a kind of lack of intimacy with anyone and anything but William’s own eye that makes the whole project feel cut off from the heart. I’ve had huge arguments about this, so don’t start, but this sense of intimate disassociation I ascribe to the fully Romantic mind.
Here’s the bit I first read read of Dorothy’s in those anthologies.
Thursday 15th. It was a threatening misty morning—but mild. We set off after dinner from Eusemere. Mrs Clarkson went a short way with us but turned back. The wind was furious and we thought we must have returned. We first rested in the large Boat-house, then under a furze Bush opposite Mr Clarkson’s. Saw the plough going in the field. The wind seized our breath the Lake was rough. There was a Boat by itself floating in the middle of the Bay below Water Millock. We rested again in the Water Millock Lane. The hawthorns are black and green, the birches here and there greenish but there is yet more of purple to be seen on the Twigs. We got over into a field to avoid some cows—people working, a few primroses by the roadside, woodsorrel flower, the anemone, scentless violets, strawberries, and that starry yellow flower which Mrs C. calls pile wort. When we were in the woods beyond Gowbarrow park we saw a few daffodils close to the water side. We fancied that the lake had floated the seeds ashore and that the little colony had so sprung up. But as we went along there were more and yet more and at last under the boughs of the trees, we saw that there was a long belt of them along the shore, about the breadth of a country turnpike road. I never saw daffodils so beautiful they grew among the mossy stones about and about them, some rested their heads upon these stones as on a pillow for weariness and the rest tossed and reeled and danced and seemed as if they verily laughed with the wind that blew upon them over the lake, they looked so gay ever glancing ever changing. This wind blew directly over the lake to them. There was here and there a little knot and a few stragglers a few yards higher up but they were so few as not to disturb the simplicity and unity and life of that one busy highway. We rested again and again. The Bays were stormy, and we heard the waves at different distances and in the middle of the water like the sea. Rain came on—we were wet when we reached Luffs but we called in. Luckily all was chearless and gloomy so we faced the storm—we must have been wet if we had waited—put on dry clothes at Dobson’s. I was very kindly treated by a young woman, the Landlady looked sour but it is her way. She gave us a goodish supper. Excellent ham and potatoes. We paid 7/ when we came away. William was sitting by a bright fire when I came downstairs. He soon made his way to the Library piled up in a corner of the window. He brought out a volume of Enfield’s Speaker, another miscellany, and an odd volume of Congreve’s plays. We had a glass of warm rum and water. We enjoyed ourselves and wished for Mary. It rained and blew when we went to bed. N.B. Deer in Gowbarrow park like skeletons.
Here’s what William made of his sister’s observations.
I WANDER'D lonely as a cloud That floats on high o'er vales and hills, When all at once I saw a crowd, A host, of golden daffodils; Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze. Continuous as the stars that shine And twinkle on the Milky Way, They stretch'd in never-ending line Along the margin of a bay: Ten thousand saw I at a glance, Tossing their heads in sprightly dance. The waves beside them danced; but they Out-did the sparkling waves in glee: A poet could not but be gay, In such a jocund company: I gazed -- and gazed -- but little thought What wealth the show to me had brought: For oft, when on my couch I lie In vacant or in pensive mood, They flash upon that inward eye Which is the bliss of solitude; And then my heart with pleasure fills, And dances with the daffodils.
Sure, it’s an amazing poem, but I still prefer Dorothy’s observations. But now that I’m reading Wilson’s book, what is there in her journals, and what isn’t, is making a much finer picture. I still like D better than W but they were both absoultely crackers (yes, deep and complex, but crackers).
Here’s the picture Wilson paints of the two of them moving along a road.
She (Dorothy) is so absorbed in William and his words that she has no sense of how comical these constitutionals appear to those who pass them by; William with what De Quincey described as his ‘cade’-like stride – ‘a cade being some sort of insect which advances by an oblique motion’ – that would edge his companions off the road, Dorothy with what De Quincey called her ‘unsexual’ gait, bent forward, hurried in her movemnts. “Mr Wordsworth went bumming and booing about’, one local recalled of Wordsworth’s muttering as he paced up and down the path, ‘and she, Miss Dorothy, kept close behint him, and she picked up the bits as he let ‘em fall, and tak ‘em down, and put ‘em on paper for him.’
The task the book is accomplishing for me is to reconcile those facts of their lives—their brilliance and their foolishness.
More later.
January 23rd, 2011
Who’s who?
Have you ever felt that you are not really you? And then suddenly, blam, there are you are back again?
Yep. That’s me today. Odd feeling.
December 14th, 2009
A present for myself
I don’t buy presents. Not for anyone at all, but this year I am buying 1 (well strictly 2) for myself. I am going to buy a copy of The Elegence of the Hedgehog – one in English and one in French.
I’ve wanted to improve my reading French for a while and the back-and-forth of two books is the easiest way for me to do that. I’ve waited until I could find a book that I wouldn’t mind obsessing over for a goodly time and after the first three paragraphs as an introduction to Renée the concierge I knew I had found my book.
Just the first three paragraphs – the young scion who found Marx – Oh! – that was enough. Such a deeply satisfying wit has Mme Barbery and since I am also unmarried, ugly and “plump” (which is a bit of an understatement), I feel I have found my natural place in the universe.
As soon as this last bit of writing is done for this term, I am going somewhere quiet, hole up and read.



