On to the syntactical future
Mon, Jan 14, 2008
Despite the acid I beg to differ.
As I remember it
was a ancient Greek military term, such as one might described the ordering of a
. [ I can't remember where I read it htough :(. ] This metaphor returns to language because the syntax of the phalanx, was the turn of another metaphor, as
phalanx means finger
. And of course, in many ways, language use is a multitude of fancy ways to point at things, and so carry them into speech.
So then, a syntax, is a working together as an ordering, perhaps barked as a command. It makes every case an
So the future may not be made by poets at all, or at least, if by poets, only by war poets in a poetry of pure orders, unhindered by the chaos of the battlefield. Of course it's here already, by virtue of
Shelley said poets were the legislators of the future
. But as a failed poet, I say, that
is, perhaps, poetry and all its legislations.
Poetry will be found in the emergent
of the future, for poetry is a making, and a bringing together of things, ordered more by self and selves than on command by some war poet
Or perhaps I am just a touch sensitive. A trans-emo-brat?