From: wprovinc@zeus.calpoly.edu (William E. Province)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED (Is poetry luxury?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:11:21 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

conrad@kryton.UUCP (Konstatin Kalikanzaros) writes:
>nikolay@husc10.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:
>
> wprovinc@zeus.calpoly.edu (William E. Province) writes:
>> 
>>    I can not speak for every one else, but for me, poetry is
>> a necessity.  I write poetry for the same reason that I learned
>> how to speak, and _only_ if you could consider speaking a 
>> luxury can you consider poetry a luxury.
>> 
>>   -- bill
>
>     contrary to nikolay's quoter i wrote what follows
>
>> >>Perhaps some clarifaction is the writing of poetry considered a luxury
>> >>or the buying of poetry collections or perhaps just the time to read
>> >>poetry?  
>> >>

    Indeed, some clarification is necessary.  Not by you at this 
point, but by me.  I'll return to this later.

>> 
>      But Bill wrote this
>
>> >     Let's see how far I can push this metaphor : I write poetry for
>> > the same reason that I learned how to speak.  I listen to/read
>> > poetry for the same reason that I learned how to understand the
>> > spoken words of others.
>> >   -- bill
>> 
>
>     Nikolay wrote this drivel 
>
>> Arrrrghhh! Aren't you people thick of meaningless, 
>> motheaten metaphors? Universal human functions have 
>> no inherent aesthetic value. 

   Bill, you must either 
>> be under 18 years of age or a gentle, mellow moron.

     This is very different from how it showed up on my site
originally, though I find this version much more amusing.
Easy Philip, you're likely to swallow your foot at this rate.

>> 
>> Philip Nikolayev
>> nikolay@husc.harvard.edu
>
>   And I wrote the rest
>
>   I still lack the clarification I asked for.  I disagree that
>universal human functions have no inherent aesthetic values.  The light
>of comprehension appearing on someones face can be truly beautiful. 
>That aside, my opinion is that poetry and art are indeed luxuries.  We
>no longer have to spend MOST of our time gathering food and searching
>for shelter.  Only when THOSE needs are satisfied do we have the
>bandwidth left over for poetry and art.  
   You are ofcourse correct in pointing out that poetry has a lower 
priority than food and shelter.  I forget the term that he used,
but I believe that it was Maslow who first discussed a priority
of needs.  However, I claim that some sort of search for "meaning"
is necessary in order to become a more fully self-actualized person.
If I must be more precise about the term "meaning", then let me put
it this way : A search for "meaning" is a search for one's relationship
with the rest of the world;  it is a search for personal identity.

    Poetry is one avenue towards that search.  It is a form of 
communication that speaks to us more strongly than prose.  Poetry
allows us to make connections and form patterns where we otherwise
would not.  To this end, I will re-iterate : I write poetry 
for the same reason that I learned how to speak.  In other words,
I write poetry in an attempt to communicate a better sense of
"meaning".  And I read poetry to fulfill the other end of the 
bargain in the two-way street of communication.  (I may be
arrogant at times, but never so arrogant as to think that I exist
alone in the universe.)

     Finally, I will address a possible objection.  Do we need
this "meaning"?  To this, I will answer "yes and no".  We do 
not need to understand the world for the sake of our respective
body's continued existence.  Our blood will still pump oxygen
to our brains regardless of our understanding ourselves.  But
what about the quality of that life?  A person who does not
understand the events that happen around him or her, or who
does not at least _feel_ that they understand will be constantly
under the onus of helplessness.  A person who feels helpless 
would not last long if placed under duress.

>I am talking society here NOT the individual.  
 
  In this context, I find it difficult to separate the two.
The society after all, is comprised of its individuals.  If
there exists a substantial portion of the individuals who
form this society who are in general, "not having a good day",
the society will suffer.

>Art evolved as part of the survival drive so I may be
>wrong here.  You have to go farther back than the paleolithic to
>determine if it is indeed a luxury.  As always your mileage may vary!
>conrad
>
>

   -- bill
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems