T.S Eliot on Metaphysical Poets

Claim: The phrase (metaphysical poets) has long done duty as a term of abuse, or as the label of a quaint and pleasant taste.

Reason 1: Extremely difficult to define metaphysical poetry, and also to decide what poets practice it and in which of their verses (para 1)
Backing:
Difficult to find any precise use of metaphor, simile, or other conceit, which is common to all the poets and at the same time important enough as an element of style to isolate these poets as a group.
We find, instead of the mere explication of the content of a comparison, a development by rapid association of thought which requires considerable agility on the part of the reader (para 1)

Reason 2: This telescoping of images and multiplied associations is characteristic of the phrase of some of the dramatists of the period which Donne knew, and is one of the sources of the vitality of their language. (para 2)

Reason 3: Johnson who employed the term metaphysical poets, remarks that the most heterogenous ideas are yoked by violence together. (para 3)
Backing:
The force of this impeachment lies in the failure of the conjunction, the fact that often the ideas are yoked but not united.
A degree of heterogeneity of material compelled into unity by the operation of the poet's mind is omnipresent in poetry.

Reason 4: It is to be observed that the language of these poets is as a rule simple and pure - a simplicity emulated without success by numerous modern poets. (para 4)

Refutation 1: The structure of the sentences, on the other hand, is sometimes far from simple
Backing:
But this is not a vice; it is a fidelity to thought and feeling.
As this fidelity induces variety of thought and feeling, so it induces variety of music.

Reason 5: If so shrewd and sensitive a critic as Johnson failed to define metaphysical poetry by its faults, it is worthwhile to inquire whether we may not have more success by adopting the opposite method.
Backing:
Johnson has hit, perhaps by accident, on one of their peculiarities, when he observed that 'their attempts were always analytic'; he would not agree that, after the dissociation, they put the material together again in a new unity

Reason 6: It is the difference between the intellectual poet and the reflective poet.
Backing:
When a poet's mind is perfectly equipped for its work, it is constantly amalgamating disparate experience; the ordinary man's experience is chaotic, irregular, fragmentary.

Reason 7: In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered; and this dissociation was aggravated by the influence of the two most powerful poets of the century, Milton and Dryden
Backing:
While the language became more refined, the feeling became more crude

Reason 8: The sentimental age began early in the eighteenth century
Backing:
The poets revolted against the ratiocinative, the descriptive; they thought and felt by fits, unbalanced; they reflected

Reason 9: The possible interests of a poet are unlimited; the more intelligent he is the better; the more intelligent he is the more likely that he will have interests: our only condition is that he turn them into poetry and not merely meditate on them poetically
Backing:
A philosophical theory which has entered into poetry is established for its truth or falsity in one sense ceases to matter, and its truth in another sense is proved.

Reason 10: Our civilisation comprehends great variety and complexity, and this variety and complexity, playing upon a refined sensibility, must produce various and complex results.
Backing:
The poet must become more and more comprehensive, more allusive, more indirect, in order to force, to dislocate if necessary, language into his meaning
Hence we get something which looks very much like the conceit - we get, in fact, a method curiously similar to that of the metaphysical poets, similar also in its use of obscure words and of a simple phrasing

Reason 11: The metaphysical poets are in direct current of English poetry, and their faults must be reprimanded by this standard, instead of antiquarian affection

Chris Maddox on Learning

The next essay is by programmer Chris Maddox, titled "Why I say Dumb Shit". It was published on the website gist.io, which is a platform for hackers who write. He writes about "learning about learning", its importance, and what one must do to go about it.

Maddox starts by confessing that he says a lot of unintelligent things, like telling an English professor that Lil Wayne was a better linguist than Shakespeare. He admits the naivety of it, but that's the point he says - as learning takes courage to admit that you're wrong, and brash foolishness to believe that you can add anything significant on top of brilliance.

The writer talks about how one can easily be cowed by greatness, preventing one from taking back anything from it. He brings up a quote from Fahrenheit 451, that talks about mistakes, and encourages one to make them to take full advantage of it. He concludes by offering a choice to his readers - either bask in the glow of smart people, or make your opinion heard, no matter how unintelligent, and then listen.

The writers style is very informal, as the use of the word "shit" in the title itself indicates. Taking personal experiences, he tries to be motivational and inspirational, which works to an extent. He also makes use of the word "brilliance" a lot, and at times uses one sentence paragraphs to dramatise the narration. His message is clear and simple - learning is a lot about making mistakes.

Margaret Sullivan on Journalists

The next essay is by Margaret Sullivan, who is a public editor appointed by the NY Times. The essay is titled "Who is a Journalist? A Question With Many Facets, and One Sure Answer", and here she ponders over what makes one a journalist, or who can call oneself a journalist in todays time.

She begins by talking about a certain Ms O'Brien, who wrote to her regarding a correction in an article where she wanted to be called a journalist. This brought up the question of who can call oneself a journalist, and there is a strong legal angle to this, she says; the federal shield law gives legal protection to journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources. Then there is the sense of professional respect shown to people who have broken major news stories.

The author then talks about being a "blogger", and how some people consider that as an insult, and that these matters have become significant, as in case of Glenn Greenwald, who was also involved in leaking some major news stories about the US government. Then she mentions one instance where the journalistic credentials of an established broadcaster came under attack - the flip side of this discussion.

Concluding, Sullivan gives a partial definition of a journalist: one who understands, at a cellular level, and doesn't shy away from, the adversarial relationship between government and press. The writing style is concise, and to the point, with short sentences and without use of any complex adjectives.

It appears to be the requirement for such an essay, where its difficult to be objective and reach a definitive conclusion. The essay ends up highlighting the difficulty in separating out "job titles" due to the rise of the internet - the lines aren't clear cut anymore.

Tim Kreider on Quiet Ones

Then sometimes words need to be forced out, giving the feeling that they might just not be "mine", but of someone else, someone I do not yet know.

The next essay is titled "Quiet Ones", and I mention the title first because it was what led me to read it further - what could possibly come out of quietness? The author is Tim Kreider, and the article was published in NY Times online opinion pages, in November 2012.

The essay begins by explaining the Amtrak's coach section called the "Quiet Car", where loud talking is forbidden and cell phones are supposed to be switched off. The essay can be divided into three broad sections - the first where he gives an account of an experience where people were not following the rules, second where he talks about how quietness is not valued anymore, and finally, another experience where the author himself was involved fighting against the rules.

While the first account describes how at times people can be ignorant of what's going around them, the essay gets interesting when the writer talks about the world today and its tendency to be noisy. He describes how TV and music is played everywhere, and about how people tend to complain too much, and spend a lot more time tapping away or conversing on phones, then finally coming back to how some people refuse to recognise the moral reality of those around them - it could be because of the rise of internet, he says.

Although some of the facts may be right, I'm always skeptical when some one talks about "how the world is changing"; its hardly an objective statement to make. The writer then concludes by talking on behalf of the "quiet ones", sending a message to everyone else who barge into their havens, to be quieter. The authors style is fairly reflective, and makes use of a good amount of humour. He uses a lot of jargon and phrases, and relatively long sentences. The accounts of personal experiences add well to the overall point of the essay.

Shannon Fischer on Emotions

I came across an essay from Boston magazine (website) by Shannon Fischer, titled "About Face", published July 2013. Here, she questions a popular theory about the way we experience and express emotions, by Paul Ekman, one that I've been an admirer of, whether its wrong.

She begins by explaining how Ekman proved a theory by Charles Darwin, one that states that people from ages and races, from all over the world express emotions in the same way. A brief outline how Ekman went about this is given, and the story of his and his work rise to fame and popularity, before questioning the theory itself.

First up, she quotes a professor of psychology Lisa Barrett, who describes it as "cartoonish", and according to whose research, the results were naturally the opposite - each one of constructs emotions in our own ways from various sources. Her basic argument against Ekman's theory was that he had given options to his subjects when asking them to identify the emotions shown on faces they were presented with, which limited the ways in which people were allowed to think.

The writer says: "think of how impossibly distracting the regular act of blinking would be if the brain consciously processed every piece of information that came its way. Instead, it pays attention to what you need to pay attention to, then raids your memory stores to fill in the blanks", and it may be how emotions are developed as well. She mentions how Barrett's further research papers, that went against Ekamn's theory, received both praise and condemnation.

The writer then describes Barrett's experiment that took on Ekman's theory directly, an experiment that Barrett considered as her most important, and one that was rejected by the magazine Science. She then concludes with a few quotes from the last time she met Barrett, and it appears as if she was frustrated naturally, and at the same time philosophical - while she could still be wrong, the data will always point in the right direction.

While the argument put forward is detailed, the conclusion is left hanging in mid air - there is still no definite proof against Ekman, perhaps only just the beginnings of it. The writing style is analytical, using points from one major research source - Lisa Barrett's work. The essay appears to be neatly organised with a couple of paragraphs making up a section to make one point, before moving on to the next section. While the essay may have successfully implanted doubts, it hasn't changed my overall perspective of Ekman's work.

William Egginton on the Paradox of the Perceived

The moment I start looking at these entries as "work", as something that must be done, most of the motivation drains away as if a certain sink hole were unplugged; perhaps its why I need these few words in the beginning that put my thoughts out in the open, taking me to a place where everything is just is.

I'm bound to read some more about paradoxes, and the next essay combines this with another area of my interest - observation. The author is William Egginton, who is a writer and a professor, and the article was published in the NY Times online opinion pages on April 28th of this year.

The writer begins with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which was a major scientific breakthrough, and says that it was in fact intuited by the poet and fiction writer Luis Borges. Borges was obsessed with paradoxes, and believed answers lied in Kant antinomies, who was again inspired by Zeno.

The rest of the essay talks about the idea of "pure observation", which does not exist, through one of Borges story from his collection "Fictions". According to the author, the story shows that at its most basic level, any observation requires a synthesis of impressions over time. To perceive something, one must be able to distinguish it from past and future impressions. This, says the writer, underlies the paradoxes of motion, antinomies and uncertainty principle.

He concludes by saying that the uncertainty principle and other aspects of quantum theory may point towards a reason that says the world as we know it is false, but it is always the world as we observe it.

The writing style is organised and logical - each paragraph links to the previous one, before coming to a final conclusion. The sentences are neither long nor short, and to the point, which makes it easy to read and understand. The way he links paradoxes, science and perception is fascinating, and is something that I'd like to explore further. 

Lee Gutkind on Listening

At times, I'd wish I'd had more time to "create" these entries, since I seem to charge through them as if I were a professional writer; but then perhaps that person is already there, though far ahead, and its more about me catching up to him.

As I continue with exploring the NY Times online opinion pages, I came across the essay titled "How To Listen" published by Lee Gutkind on July 1st of this year. In this essay, he makes a couple of suggestions or observations on the ability to listen.

The author makes two broad points - one where he recalls his experience with his therapist, and the other where he talks about how he went about interviewing Dr. Alan Waggoner for his book "Almost Human: Making Robots Think". About his therapist, he describes how the sessions would go, or how he would get him to begin talking - by leaning forward, all the while maintaining eye contact, and then giving a nod. Then like a music conductor, he would guide him whenever he went off track.

Listening is an active process, says the author, and its the first lesson for anyone who writes or interviews; interviews being from the perspective of a narrative or a creative non fiction writer - the job is often to keep the subject talking. Giving another example of interviewing techniques, he talks about William Howarth who would slow his speech and knit his brow, and when repeating answers he garbles them so that a new answer will be provided.

The writer then explains how he managed to interview Dr. Waggoner successfully, using the above techniques - that is by encouraging nods, and repeating questions whenever required. Although he'd tagged along with the whole team to observe, to reconstruct the story he had to efficiently interview Dr. Waggoner, so that neuroscientists could learn and enjoy it at the same time, which according to the writer is the challenge of creative non fiction.

The writers style appears to reflect the experience he's had - the points made are simple and concise, never going off topic. The narration is also polished, and as for putting forth his argument, he chooses to make very few points, which makes it more comprehensive. Listening appears to be an underrated skill that people don't usually talk about, which I presume was also one of the writers intention to point out in his essay.

Peg O'Connor on The Light at the End of Suffering

It has been some time since I was last here, and unable to find any reasonable excuses at this moment, I seem to fall on laziness, making it seem as if that were the only possibility, even though a part of me knows its not the case.

Today's article is once again from the NY times online opinion blogs, titled "The Light at the End of Suffering", by Peg O'Connor, who is a teacher and occasionally gives talks on philosophy and addiction. In the article, she speculates over the "breaking point" of a person, by giving a rundown on the work of William James work "The Varieties of Religious Experience".

She begins by pondering over the question - how much more can one take? A question one usually avoids due to its bleakness, failing to look at it as a genuine question, and the fact that it can be an opportunity to make radical change instead, which was what her knowledge in addiction tells her. Diving into William James work, who looks at what she calls a "misery threshold" to know if some people were more capable or more prone to experience "acute fever" of religious or spiritual beliefs, she reveals his findings - those who suffer more are more inclined to experience that fever.

Going more into details of his work, the author comes to the point where it intersects with her knowledge of addiction and psychology. She then terms three stages of "world sickness" or the war within - pleasure diminished, pleasure destroyed and pathological melancholy - the final stage wherein one experiences anxiety about the universe and everything in it. Its here, she says, where one has the potential to transform leading to the acute fever of beliefs as described above.

Talking about addicts, the writer says its difficult to spot one who's "surrendered to higher powers", or in other words, transformed. However, they have a firmness of mind and character, clear beliefs, stability and finally, equilibrium. She concludes with one of James proclamation, that hope and redemption are as much part of life, as chaos and despair.

The authors style is fairly direct, seemingly only using words that are required, with appropriate quotes here and there. The sentences are neither long nor short, and most of the content points towards the work of James, which was used well to transfer it to her own line of expertise, that is addiction. She appears to give a very scientific explanation to an addicts life, the suffering and overcoming it, although the narration was hazy.