[New-Poetry] Re: Books a poet should own

[Roger Day]

Reductive tools are useful, and can bootstrap us somewhere else ...

Set theory is attractive - a poem can belong to multiple sets: set of
forms, set of poems, set of poems by author A. A poem is, potentially,
a set of paratactical statements. If I were to design a database,
then, yes, I would be using set theory.  I would not be chewing a
biscuit, no matter what packet you gae me. Would I be able to
postulate a flying pig from set theory? Possibly. I'd still have to
see the devious little bugger.

Surely, if we are silent on the objective level, we're knocking on
Heidegger's door?

OTOH, the map being the territory knocks us into superceding reallity,
the hyperreal?

Roger

On 10/22/06, Robin Hamilton <robin.hamilton2 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> But I'd see that as almost too obvious -- so what about the case of set
> theory?  This could be couched in a variety of modes -- Human language ("Bob
> Grumman is a Hoozier but Roger Day and Robin Hamilton are not
> {British/English and Scottish}, but all three are males. [Probably, with all
> the caveats that cybernetic identity implies.]") -- symbolic logic --
> mathematics.  And within "pure" maths, couched in symbols or presented as
> Venn Diagrams.
>
> Dunno.  Just a thought.
>
> -Was-Right Hamilton
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>


-- 
http://www.badstep.net/
http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
Suspicion breeds confidence