| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| omnipoetics:quasha [2025/04/02 19:35] – [Part II: Object at a Distance] blaine | omnipoetics:quasha [2025/04/03 00:06] (current) – [Part III: A Further Part] blaine |
|---|
| ===== Part III: A Further Part ===== | ===== Part III: A Further Part ===== |
| |
| ? | In this part of Quasha's text, he self-quotes "autoskreelik" ("writing about writing about what you're writing about"), in which he tries to get to the bottom of the purpose of criticism, i.e. self-awareness.He brings up John Cage's experimentation with poetry as "musically structured language" and an openness for "uncertainty" in discourse. He talks of both clarity that comes with writing a lot and finding usefulness in uncertainty from "listening to one’s own speech as guide to the sayable." (472) He emphasizes how listening to oneself causes discourse to change again and again and again, it has a self-renewing quality to it. Basically, no form of interpretation should be fixed, it does not need to always make sense. The goal of "reoralization" is to "//free reader-listener from the anxiety of right interpretation.//" (472) This is interesting because I could not make sense of half of the thing Quasha was trying to say in this essay. |
| |
| | He discusses the implications of "tuning" in to alignment or psychic adjustment to "enter the work" - whether or not done orally or through the page. These are the themes he mentions (472-3): |
| | * self-awareness (auto-exegesis/ta wit) |
| | * uncertainty as practice (Negative Capability) |
| | * altered states of discourse (Parapoetics) |
| | * the difficulty of the text (uninterpretable complexity) |
| | * processual and open alignment (“ resonance’’/“ tuning” ) |
| | * reoralization/further textualization (DiaLogos) |
| | |
| | Moreover, he wants to stay in the betweenness with poetics (oral and written) and dialogical discourse, without settling on a side - thus he brings up "parapoetics." It creates a sense of openness for the unknown and uncertain. (473) His final words are important: |
| |
| | <blockquote> |
| | What we are experiencing, then, is not only the reoralization of poetry but of poetics and of discourse in general, the bringing out, as it were, of the logos in theologies. And their further textualization, because the principal way we know of these things is through texts. When the “ talkers” — Antin or Fuller or Kamin, et al.— are going about their talking, it is clear that they are weaving text, that their experience as makers of texts fundamentally conditions the oral emergence. So that, again, it is not a matter of oral vs. written but of the way their continuous remarriage creates discourse and takes it beyond itself.... (473-4) |
| | </blockquote> |
| | |
| | |
| | === From 'America as Woman' (SaF 112) === |
| | **Jerome Rothenberg & George Quasha** |
| | |
| | <blockquote>We have encountered that woman-presence before-a nearly universal myth of "Mother Earth," or of the land, that which we wrench from Earth, with pleasure at first, then in a dream of losses endlessly repeated. She is Blake's Jerusalem (and his Oothoon-Enitharmon, as America herself): the one the Jews called the Shekhina, the Gnostics called Sophia, the Tantrists called Goddess-of-Wisdom-Whose-Substance-Is-Desire and in her terrifying aspect, Kali... |
| | In the story of American poetry she turns up often. She is earth or god, wisdom or muse--or that woman always one town ahead of our pursuit, say, or like the poor-old-soul of Bukka White's blues, singing |
| | I ain't got nobody / to take me to this train / Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm / Mmmmmmmmmm mm mmmm... </blockquote> |
| | |
| | |
| | {{tag>English Essay Orality Written Dialogue}} |
| |
