~ philosophy ~ logic ~ mathematics ~ poetry
Very nicely put. A poet can articulate the suffering within himself and communicate it to the world, and then the world realizes its own suffering. This is a good thing!
It's as if he's able to conjure up a mirror in which we can see the reflection of our souls.
Or is it that he suffers like anyone else but he is merely able to report on nuances of the experience that would go undetect in others but are still present in their experience?
I think hat some have more profound experiences thn others i.e. they're more sensitive. I don't think eloquence is sufficient for good poetry.
Interesting, I've never thought about it that way.
Why not to extend it to an artist rather then just a poet?1. We all suffer - it is integral part of human life ( and possibly all animal life).2. Eloquence (a tool) is a necessary element in an art.3. Nobody is interested any more in understanding the profound effect of our suffering. It is much easier to cover the suffering scars with a material crap and most believe it does the job.
It does not seamlesly extend, because articulation plays a part in describing, seeing, defining and understanding the self.Poetry being embedded in language which plays a part, I think, of defining the self has an influence on that definition. Other art mediums, at least for me, do not have such a close influence on the self.The suffering I'm talking about is the kind that usually gets written off as madness.
The word 'expert' does not belong with a poet. It makes him a trades-person, a technician. Why not use 'of a pert'?Bather
I suggest you write and publish a dictionary which restricts the use of sone concepts simultaniously: "Terms that do not go togheder accorning to Bather"
Post a Comment