“Are there happy poets? Can one write poetry without having suffered (some) exile? Why has there been deep pessimism about poets, & might poets cause wars and genocide? How is deeply personal poetry dangerous? Does poetry represent perfect, universal and eternal truth? How is a poet different from a philosopher? Does poetry find its foothold in a good society, when philosophical truth is understood as a process, & not a product? How might limitless (anarchic) emotions be expressed given the limits of language? Can one ‘suggest’ that which cannot be written? How do ‘word’ and ‘meaning’ come together in poetry? What is the relationship between form and content? Is poetry a very personal use of language for the poet (and the reader)? What is the link between the ethical and the aesthetic? How might bhava become rasa? What happens the moment you come in contact with yourself? Is poem something whose essence cannot be removed from it? How & when do poems get exhausted? Should poetry be history? How did the ‘first’ poetry come to be? Is an exile always asked for? Might an exile be a voyage? Will ‘mistakes of intellect’ continue to happen? SynTalk thinks about these & more questions using concepts from political theory & poetry (Prof. Ashwani Kumar, TISS, Mumbai), literature (Udayan Vajpeyi, Bhopal), & literary theory and philosophy (Prof. Sitanshu Yashaschandra, ex-M.S. University, Vadodara).”
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
synthetic zerØ 
Some interesting and long standing questions. Reminded me of pseudo-Aristotle’s “Problems connected with intelligence, understanding, and wisdom,” in book 30 of Problems.
1. “Why is it that all those men who have become extraordinary in philosophy, politics, poetry, or the arts are obviously melancholic, and some to such an extent that they are seized by the illnesses that come from black bile…?”
ah yeah long history of pathologizing the patho-logoi of our passions, tastes, and moods, while everyone is rushing to be post human i can’t help but note that we have yet to really embrace our alltoohuman existences.
To embrace our all-too-human existence, that seems almost a contradiction in terms. As a species, we are defined by our desire to break out of our 4-dimensional spacetime, which is to say, as much as we know, the very conditions of our existence.
that’s not my desire but let a thousand flowers bloom
II have read your posts for a while now… Not sure if they can be called posts. Essays would be more exact. And there is hardly any school of thought you have not touched on. The sheer breadth is overwhelming, not to mention the depth. Are you telling me you never knocked your head against such constructions of conceptualizing higher dimensions, such as the Klein bottle? Check out “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions,” by Edwin Abbott if you haven’t already.
not an essayist myself or sure what a higher dimension is but will take a look at the Abbott thanks
*(as far as we know)