08-06-2011, 05:55 AM
In my opinion, and there is nothing humble about it, our universe is objective, and our lives are spent trying to comprehend it the only way we can, subjectively. How can one trust J Albers? There is something very fishy about a man who spells his name with an 'f' -- like Fritzl, for example. Anyway, I was wrangling about precisely that point of perception when I was a kid/teen -- it was a good one, you could while away hours with that.
So, poetry -- it is no more than a sub-sub-sub division of all else. Can men say, objectively, that a nuclear reactor conforms to certain standards or designs? Get 10 to-gether, and no doubt, with just a hint of a reservation here and there, they can. After Fukushima their memory of those memories may be heightened, but if objective, in the real world, is to mean anything, it must include a soupcon of the subjective.
On this basis, I can say: it is not a fucking anapaest. It is of no consequence that in Kwa Zulu, the word in question is pronounced as an anapaest. I speak of my English. I can also apply the same rule, if required to the English of Kwa Zulu. Then it might be a fucking anapaest.
I can,therefore, establish some building-blocks.
There is more. Leaving spelling and grammar aside -- everyone else does, after all-- there are certain things which seem to resonate with humans, or certainly English-speaking ones, for reasons unclear: for example, the long, open syllable, at the end of a line especially, ('you' 'woo' e.g.) has the effect of creating a warm feeling (use your double entendre inhibitor please). Some sounds are apt to have a flavour: 'sk' as an initial, as well as school, which one might argue over, produces 'scuzzy', 'skanky', 'scum', 'scream' and so on. Using rules and basic understandings of this sort, there seems to be no reason why, provided they are of similar intelligence, and blessed with similar education, ten men would not reach the same conclusion on a brief piece of poetry as they might, differently educated on the state of our nuclear reactor. Which said, the longer and more complex either is, the greater the likelihood that that subjective part of their objective judgments will come to the fore, and their opinions come to differ
I therefore think the answer is a highly annoying yes--and no.
All this avails itself of the Interpretations Act 1889, which provides that the term 'men' shall include 'women'.
So, poetry -- it is no more than a sub-sub-sub division of all else. Can men say, objectively, that a nuclear reactor conforms to certain standards or designs? Get 10 to-gether, and no doubt, with just a hint of a reservation here and there, they can. After Fukushima their memory of those memories may be heightened, but if objective, in the real world, is to mean anything, it must include a soupcon of the subjective.
On this basis, I can say: it is not a fucking anapaest. It is of no consequence that in Kwa Zulu, the word in question is pronounced as an anapaest. I speak of my English. I can also apply the same rule, if required to the English of Kwa Zulu. Then it might be a fucking anapaest.
I can,therefore, establish some building-blocks.
There is more. Leaving spelling and grammar aside -- everyone else does, after all-- there are certain things which seem to resonate with humans, or certainly English-speaking ones, for reasons unclear: for example, the long, open syllable, at the end of a line especially, ('you' 'woo' e.g.) has the effect of creating a warm feeling (use your double entendre inhibitor please). Some sounds are apt to have a flavour: 'sk' as an initial, as well as school, which one might argue over, produces 'scuzzy', 'skanky', 'scum', 'scream' and so on. Using rules and basic understandings of this sort, there seems to be no reason why, provided they are of similar intelligence, and blessed with similar education, ten men would not reach the same conclusion on a brief piece of poetry as they might, differently educated on the state of our nuclear reactor. Which said, the longer and more complex either is, the greater the likelihood that that subjective part of their objective judgments will come to the fore, and their opinions come to differ
I therefore think the answer is a highly annoying yes--and no.
All this avails itself of the Interpretations Act 1889, which provides that the term 'men' shall include 'women'.