Many thanks for replying, Aladdin.
You seem, if I may say so, to have misunderstood the thrust of the post I made.
You seem to imply I was saying the rational isn't necessary on one breath:
"why anyone would not want to primarily deal with this world in a rational way," which is exactly my point.
Romanticising matters is hardly a contribution likely to produce changes.
It didn't work for Christianity, let alone poetry as an art form.
You then, on the other hand, produce an excellent list of concerns, but end it with:
"so to generalize and say the rational is better is pretty shocking to ME"
I have argued that what we need is balance. So many times the affective response dominates in human thinking, and too little reason and rationalism is applied.
You then go on to say using one of my original statements:
" *I prefer to see things as they really are* to me, that is quite a statement*maybe see things---as they really are seen through YOUR EYES? filtered through your mind which is developed by your biology and experience and what you have learned/been taught? "
I NEVER prefer to see things on the basis of my personal affective perceptions alone. That is what I was saying in my post. I need my perceptions to be confirmed objectively and empirically by others too!
I have no objection to your affective responses to the poetry being discussed at all... indeed I share them.. it was mysterious, it was beautifully expressed... and it didn't relate to any reality that I am aware of, or is related to the objective world as can be perceived by anyone.
It is just a set of imaginary 'wishes', which is fine for what it actually is... an affective outpouring.
Anyone's affective judgements of poetry are valid, yours or mine. I didnot say or imply otherwise, so we agree on that, but......
You then criticise by saying:
"everyone appreciates different things and there are no laws about how it should or should not be."
Do I understand by this you rule out the whole dimension of study labelled 'Aesthetics"? The fact is that there is 'good' and 'bad' Art, in all fields, music, painting, sculpture, what-have-you. There is 'Art' that breaks aesthetic conventions, too, which is valid both in reason and execution. It is the discernment of individuals which varies according to their affective nature and nurture. If that doesn't include, but actually rejects judgements of form, rhythm, imagery, etc., then those purely affective judgements are just that... affective, without rationality. That's fine... a fire is warm and it comforts me when I am cold. This piece of poetry we are discussing may be full of warm wishes and personal desires, but it goes no further. It's warmth is just its perceived warmth... which is fine if that is all you want from poetry.
As I said, poetry unrelated to reality is 'soft'. This kind of poetry needs a sharp edge, a harsh edge.. a dose of reality to which the people - the audience - can relate.
A vagueness about blessing and benedictions from above, from the ethereal, that may or may not be related by the audience to reality, is not good enough.
I repeat... the very greatest of poets, people like Chaucer, William Blake, Shakespeare and so many others lies in dosing their poetry with relationships to the real and objective in human experiences.
This piece didnot achieve that. Aesthetic judgements should be part and
parcel of any critical judgements.
On the one hand I say I enjoyed it. I enjoy lots of things that haven't a harder edge! On the other I should be able to bring aesthetic judgements to bear and be able to say if in fact it was good or bad poetically in achieving an objective with a mixed audience... it doesn't achieve that... it remains vague and woolly, deliberately appealing only in terms of an equally affective response. Many, quite reasonably(!) find that not enough. Some don't. They are willing to just be warmed by the affective fire of the words. That is how I woulkd categorise your responses, and there is nothing badly wrong with that that some added reasoning wouldn't cure.
You then say, and you have a perfect right to say as an affective opinion... or value judgement:-
"I think in art "fact and objectivity" (in the sense I think you are implying) is pretty irrelevant."
I would equally maintain that you are not only wrong, but can be proven to be wrong outside value judgements. My evidence? My evidence can be discerned in what has always been accepted as 'good' poetry, and what is accepted as 'bad'.... aesthetic judgements based in pragmatic and refined and reasoned criteria. Good poetry relates to the objective and material experiences of human beings in such glorious ways that it endures across cultures, as with the admiration of Shakespeare as translated, and original, in Chinese schools across the whole of China.
Shakespeare is perhaps the best example of the 'hard edged' combination of rationality and reason and the affective domain, illustrating that poetry always needs masters like Ted Hughes, and hundreds of others, who we should always in the end, endeavour to emulate.
Incidentally, "they' are usually western Christians, Moslems, and all those who substitute dogma and doctrines based in ancient texts written for very different purposes than the purposes accepted in a modern world, in a monotheistic culture and concept of the world.
Also, you seem to wish - perhaps I am wrong - to deny the poetical use of parable as one can cite in connection with Christianity. The 'parables' as attached to the stories of Jesus of Nazareth, ALWAYS pointed to objective and realistic concerns which make them 'good' in aesthetic terms... there is no point to a parable if the intended audience fails to 'see' the connection to reality!
======
I do not think you are being "obnoxious", as indeed I am not intending to be either.
We are having a reasoned debate... I hope.
I too look forward to further writings as the one we are discussing.
Apologies for any typos!
