I seem to have done a decent job in a previous post of convincing at least one person that I believe in a MACHO RATIONALISM that should exist in art and poetry.
This blog is a tool- a device- for testing my intellectual muscles. What that means is that sometimes these posts are honest expressions and sometimes they are merely oppositional ones. In order to an understand an argument, sometimes you have to know both sides.
So sometimes, on this blog, I write something I don't believe in simply to exercise my mind in thinking in other ways. Ron Silliman's MACHO RATIONALISM- the idea that poetry and strive to remove emotional thinking and replace it with a purely objective reality- serves as a background to the Poetry and the Uncanny Valley post.
For the record: Poetry is emotional. It's unavoidable. That anything can be rationalized, especially through poetry, seems ridiculous to me and is part of the same thinking that provides us with "The Best New" this and the "Brightest New" that. That you can objectively measure all things is not a belief I hold. As Jennifer has pointed out to me many times, even baseball isn't that objective- a strike, while it ought to mean one thing, doesn't.
I suppose for the future, there ought to be some way in which to show I'm serious or I'm not serious, but that would take all the fun out of the posts! When the person who was questioning my previous post emailed, I felt proud that my argument skills had not magically died off in the last 3.5 years of Iowan Exile.
I think the best idea, if something seems argumentative in the post, is to post in the comments section about how and why I'm wrong- the debate's the thing!