May 30th, 2023
- I've been realizing that I access a totally different kind of poetry when I channel my old english roots and emphasize alliteration rather than rhyme
- it forces focus on the feel of every word
- it's more subtle, more supple, more susceptible to slowly slipping and sliding into sensuality
- where rhyme restricts, rerouting reason towards readymade ratholes
- alliteration is additive, allowing adolescent appearances into adulthood
- constraints can cause condemnation to clichés and cached connections
- wrote Hank Green, "for years I always went through life, as a guy who always had to rhyme life with strife"
- life literally lets little limbs long and lust for evolutionary expansive emanance
- yet "life", last in a line, licks losers with its lack of lingual lyric-likes
- alliteration as alcohol and acid, dissolving dead dull diction into delightful devastation
- rhyme as ritalin and rice, wasting whatever words want to occupy the width of your creation
- or perhaps, playfully, a poet pleases the palette pairwise
- notes from MalJess convo
- "there's a version for the weak and a version for the strong, and I feel alone in working on the version for the weak"
- other axes... functional vs dysfunctional, big-sensemaking vs little-sensemaking
- big=abstract, general ... little=physiological, immediate
- Mal/Val stuff seems physiologically in-sensitive
- the preconquest stuff
- M ~> "ultimately the MalVal stuff knows it needs the physiological sensemaking stuff"
- Jess took issue with "ultimately",
- which I got an insight from that I think was somewhat different than what she was trying to say:
- not in the sense that it DOESN'T ultimately need that, or that one can't know
- but in the sense that it needs to happen NOW - Gall's Law. you can't put it off. you can't tack it on later. you have to be doing your best version of it now
- and the emphasis on "ultimately" can be kind of distancing/dualizing/separating
- (it ALSO has a use, in terms of understanding attractors & wholeness and so on)
- and in terms of the LH being able to understand aspects of how the whole system WILL function before there's a living version of it, so that it can consciously & willingly cooperate in creating it
- (but I feel like I understand why she may have been pushing back)
- (and even if this wasn't why she was pushing back, I now resonate with this critique)
- if you insert a platonic structure, without recognizing that its use is also up for grabs, fluid, participatory, etc
- (hmm perhaps something about how the introduction of the platonic thing IS A MOVE, and that even if "true", its relevance or adequacy is questionable)
- (and the potential it has to obscure something else)
- again with "The Thing"
- "we have the answer to how to figure it out for yourself"
- ...I think there's an important negated version which IS true, which is something like "we know a bunch about what WON'T work"
- (and that's kind of the "distrust is gnosis" thing itself)
- some narrative about how "we'll figure out the thing, and it'll spread like this"
- M > and that's the thing you were describing as totalizing