02-24-2012, 03:38 PM
"Reading anyone else's before I wrote my own would impair
my ability to provide objective criticism."
A statement that is in direct contradiction to your normal stance about such things, e.g., "that no one can know anything for certain about anything." The fact that one must make a case for whatever one may say, and despite that, at least half of the people will still disagree with you, speaks to just how much we are in agreement about the objectivity of any held idea as it relates to poetry.
There is no such thing as objective criticism. If you need proof, then I point you to the failed experiment that was "Modernism". Beyond that I can point you to the shaky ground upon which uneasily rest scientific determinism (physically, I believe it currently resides somewhere in the area of the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva), especially as it pertains to such things as a unified field theory, or the reality of the Ancient city of Troy. One's worldview is formed from all preceding experiences, how you responded to them, and how it affected you, in terms of how you see yourself in relation to the world (that is: "are you are a victim of the events that occur involving you, or are you their progenitor?") Picking up a few more viewpoints, or tidbits of information, will hardly change in any drastic way how you will perceive the piece. The mind of any halfway facile individual, can project outcomes that include and do not include any information that you might pick up. If one's mind cannot, then the claim to objectivity of any kind is so far beyond the pale as to make extreme egocentrism appear to be the norm (of course for some, it is exactly extreme egocentrism which they are referencing when they speak of objectivity
).
Dale
my ability to provide objective criticism."
A statement that is in direct contradiction to your normal stance about such things, e.g., "that no one can know anything for certain about anything." The fact that one must make a case for whatever one may say, and despite that, at least half of the people will still disagree with you, speaks to just how much we are in agreement about the objectivity of any held idea as it relates to poetry.
There is no such thing as objective criticism. If you need proof, then I point you to the failed experiment that was "Modernism". Beyond that I can point you to the shaky ground upon which uneasily rest scientific determinism (physically, I believe it currently resides somewhere in the area of the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva), especially as it pertains to such things as a unified field theory, or the reality of the Ancient city of Troy. One's worldview is formed from all preceding experiences, how you responded to them, and how it affected you, in terms of how you see yourself in relation to the world (that is: "are you are a victim of the events that occur involving you, or are you their progenitor?") Picking up a few more viewpoints, or tidbits of information, will hardly change in any drastic way how you will perceive the piece. The mind of any halfway facile individual, can project outcomes that include and do not include any information that you might pick up. If one's mind cannot, then the claim to objectivity of any kind is so far beyond the pale as to make extreme egocentrism appear to be the norm (of course for some, it is exactly extreme egocentrism which they are referencing when they speak of objectivity
). Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.