but then Dante is not easy translated or not.
again
would it not be better for someone to read/learn a new language in order to read literature instead of resorting to translating it?
i believe in conservation of original work because once they are at the hands of others they lose their meaning
i think it does more damage then good long term it creates misunderstanding and dogma when it comes to studying it
i believe that people should entertain learning new languages to read literary material in their original format
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
1. Whatever the perceiver of an art form receives does not dictate the style and/or substance of an art work. The style and substance are inherent elements of the art work itself. Using your logic, a blind person looking at a Van Gogh painting would erase its style as well...he or she wouldn't.
2. Again, your not knowing the meaning of a Gayatri mantra does not erase its meaning and/or substance at all. Your performance of it may have less meaning, but the meaning of the mantra stays the same.
3. Whether a computer or a human didn't understand the words of the literary or non-literary work would have no bearing on the still-existing substance of the work. Most, if not all, writers do not fully grasp the substance of their written work. That doesn't magically erase or affect that substance.
4-6--Actual gibberish has very little substance. However, like all written or oral expressions, the speaker of it has no impact on that substance.
7. One cannot form an idea for a poem without words, otherwise that "idea" is just subconscious, pre-conceptual pap, not an actual idea. So, an idea for a poem would always have style as well.
Last edited by Pike Bishop; 04-30-2015 at 09:57 AM.
There is plenty of enjoyment from attending an opera in a language one does not understand because there is more going on than the lyrics. The same would apply to the heavy metal band whose lyrics may not be understandable even to native speakers. My point is one does not get substance from the language, only style.
The same thing goes for the Gayatri mantra which can be beneficial as sound without knowing the meaning of the words.
The computer response in a Turing test when the response makes no sense to the human listeners would be an example of style without substance from the perspective of both the computer and the listeners. This is not just data, but an actual string of words.
Gibberish coming from various sources is probably a good example of style without substance. I am thinking of Joyce's Finnegan's Wake as one example of that.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
From the perspective of the blind viewer there is nothing there.
What I am trying to bring out in this example is the power of the style of language even if one does not understand it. I think sound is more powerful than an image which is one of the reasons why I am puzzled with the image metaphor that is used to describe poetry.
In the case of the computer making a response in the Turing test (and failing the test), the words the computer generated had no substance from the computer's perspective nor from the perspective of the human listener. They were pure style.
What you just wrote doesn't make any sense to me. So it would be pure style. It seems like you are saying that gibberish is an example of style without substance and then there is the however clause that follows that doesn't make sense.
So, I would use this passage as another example of style without substance.
I think one needs to have some language to start with but I don't think it is clear what else is involved. Our thoughts can range in emotional content, but at this point it is not a poem.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
You get a lot of substance, YesNo, because substance is not just information or data. The energy, the feeling you get from a long haired troglodyte riffing and grutting is part of the substance. There is a reason why rock and roll can have similar impact either you know the lyrics (be it grunting or not). There is a reason they feel the same either it is a solo or not. The artistic expression there is not only in lyrics. The same goes for Opera. Either you know what means Figaro or not, but you can relate to the emotions in that performance.
The way you are talking, you can only access the substance if you have a complete understanding of the artwork and that is not true, because frankly, I doubt there is such thing as complete understanding of any artwork. And art is not science, what is being shared is more than informaiton, it is feelings and experiences, things you cannot explain so well. (Even a scientific thesis is telling a bit about how you should access the thesis, the dry, direct, objective style in a thesis is a way to lead you to a more analytic approach, but you can see, they want to reduce a lot the possiblities of the text to avoid misinterpretation. But in art, misinterpretation is a legitimate form of dialogue).
I have no idea what the Turing text may be or not. It is art? It is a random set of world? No meaning at all? Hence random. It is style? or Just form?
As Gibberish, even your example showed how it is a bad example: Gibberish spoken by those being verbally abusive, intending not to communicate. So, if you know they are verbally abusive, you know some of the content. There is abuse. So there is some substance. I am sure also you can also tell by the gibberish the anger behind it. Substance.
And of course, Joyce has no substance? His destruction of language is about chaos, primordial creation of words, some sort of universal human circle. FW style is chaotic, destructive, a mix of words, because of this. There is a lot of substance.
Last edited by JCamilo; 04-30-2015 at 11:32 AM.
Now, you're just repeating what you've already said before like your own little mantra...despite my having shown, with actual syllogistic and textual support, that you are wrong.
1. There is substance to all musical or purposeful sound such as mantras. If you think you need words for substance in oral or written music, chants, or mantras, you need to re-examine your notions of musicology and phenomenology, as well as aesthetics.
2. Again, the substance of a linguistic text does not depend on the reception of the text, even if a Turing machine produced it. I showed why that is true in my last post; you clearly didn't read it.
3. If you think Finnegan's Wake, one of the greatest works in the English and Irish language is just gibberish, you need to take some more English classes. Its being too difficult for you does not make it gibberish.
Last edited by Pike Bishop; 04-30-2015 at 12:17 PM.
1. The perspective of a blind viewer has no bearing on the substance of the Van Gogh painting. The blind person may see nothing there, but the substance doesn't go away. The same goes for a deaf person at a symphony; his or her deafness does not negate the substance of the music. According to your logic, a blind person looking at you and not seeing you would take away your substance. I don't think you want to go there.
2, You weren't just trying to "bring out the meaning" of the mantra, you were erroneously claiming your limited experience of the mantra negated its substance, and it doesn't. And you clearly don't understand imagery's place in poetry. However, you make the solipsistic and illogical mistake of thinking that actually negates imagery's clear presence in poetry, literature, and other written form...and it doesn't.
3. Because of your constant repetitions without syllogistic support, I am saying this for the last time. Whether the creator of a written work is a computer or a human, the substance of a work is not contingent on the views of the creator or the perceiver of it. Using your logic, J.K. Rowling's changed view--as well as any of her reader's views--of one of her Harry Potter novels would change its substance. So, your logic is clearly flawed.
4. What I said in my post made perfect sense, and it was both style and substance. So, if didn't understand it, you need to work on your English and/or your lexicon. And my "however" clause made perfect sense and was perfectly clear. Your not grasping it is a comment on your reading skills, not my writing. I'll spell it out for you, though, since you failed to adequately read it: even the substance of gibberish expression isn't dictated by its speaker; it's dictated by its expression.
5. Again, you terribly misread, misrepresented, and misunderstood what I wrote. I never said the ideas formed a poem; that's a terrible strawman on your part. I correctly said: "One cannot form an idea for a poem without words, otherwise that "idea" is just subconscious, pre-conceptual pap, not an actual idea. So, an idea for a poem would always have style as well." And that is absolutely true. The fact you didn't even bother to dispute it helps support that fact.
Finally, since you rudely and incorrectly disparaged one of my responses as "style without substance," I will speak frankly (but politely) with you. I have no interest in continually debating with someone who constructs severely flawed arguments then digs in and continually repeats them after they are shown to be wrong. I also have no interest in debating someone who hasn't effectively examined their flawed aesthetic arguments for their holes or illogical ramifications. So, I will no longer engage you on this or any other matter and am putting you on ignore. I have no interest in wasting any more of my time with your mantras.
Good luck on your discussions.
Last edited by Pike Bishop; 04-30-2015 at 12:09 PM.
What a remarkably exemplary statement. There certainly isn't much style to it, with "soap box" being a tired cliche. And, considering you make no cogent critique of any of my points, the substance is remarkably ephemeral as well.
Feel free to actually contribute if you ever feel you can...
Well, here's a suggestion if you want to be productive and polite in your discourse. Don't take cheap swipes at people's posts/arguments if you can't show the courtesy of actually backing them up. That's exactly what trolls do, and I don't believe you're a troll.
Last edited by tonywalt; 04-30-2015 at 01:45 PM.
It is certainly possible to say very little with great style. It is certainly possible to find readers willing to accept that any surreal concatenation of words must be a sign of profundity. Deep wells may be full of junk. Elements of not so common sense must be employed by every reader. But we all have different tastes and most of us may enjoy stylish drivel at times just as we may need a cake made largely of fake cream and glaringly loud colours rather than an apple.
"Deep wells may be full of Junk" Eiseabhal? Echoes there of that Bletchley Park poet. Intentional?