meikaTue, Jan 15, 2008 The metaphor of the 'ordering' (syntaxis) of an Ancient Greek military unit (phalanx, finger) has been used (millennia later) by Terence McKenna in a moment of insight into the freedom of a virtual world compared to meatspace engineering, proclaiming, "The engineers of the future will be poets. "
After some linguistic/grammar puns I say they must be but war poets and sappers, embedded in carnage and undermining connections. No doubt this is a moment of etymological fundamentalism on my part.
I then suggest that, as a failed poet myself, with reference to Shelley's Defence of Poetry, that chiliastically leaping about saying that the paradise-to-be is poetry, is really but a future ruin, (like Shelley's Ozymandias). If not an instant ruin.
This leads to the poetical suggestion, from a failed poet, that maybe a non-military non-finger-pointing ordering(not) of speech might be more useful metaphors. Though I don't think I give any suggestions. Might save them for a post.
At this point Folkert adds, "That's still a little rudimentary though, the ultimate goal would of course be to do away with syntax altogether."
Which I read —as I would, as a failed poet— "as without syntax and use some other ordering(not) (non-imperative) system". Not that there would be no order but that it would be more emergent than pointed.
So we're all right, if not alright already.
ps
the (not) following 'ordering' is a substitute for strikethrough text which is not allowed here, thus ordering(not)
I feel like a tutor ruining the poem for everyone. I am Ozymandias.
The metaphor of the 'ordering' (syntaxis) of an Ancient Greek military unit (phalanx, finger) has been used (millennia later) by Terence McKenna in a moment of insight into the freedom of a virtual world compared to meatspace engineering, proclaiming, "The engineers of the future will be poets. "
After some linguistic/grammar puns I say they must be but war poets and sappers, embedded in carnage and undermining connections. No doubt this is a moment of etymological fundamentalism on my part.
I then suggest that, as a failed poet myself, with reference to Shelley's Defence of Poetry, that chiliastically leaping about saying that the paradise-to-be is poetry, is really but a future ruin, (like Shelley's Ozymandias). If not an instant ruin.
This leads to the poetical suggestion, from a failed poet, that maybe a non-military non-finger-pointing ordering(not) of speech might be more useful metaphors. Though I don't think I give any suggestions. Might save them for a post.
At this point Folkert adds, "That's still a little rudimentary though, the ultimate goal would of course be to do away with syntax altogether."
Which I read —as I would, as a failed poet— "as without syntax and use some other ordering(not) (non-imperative) system". Not that there would be no order but that it would be more emergent than pointed.
So we're all right, if not alright already.
ps
the (not) following 'ordering' is a substitute for strikethrough text which is not allowed here, thus ordering(not)
I feel like a tutor ruining the poem for everyone. I am Ozymandias.