is poetry an understanding or a feeling?

[cacian]

to read a poem is to feel something it does not matter what the feeling is. so long as the feeling has occurred albeit tiny small insignificant, we have felt something we have never felt before.
the purpose of poetry is to engage a some sort of feeling.
it could be an astonished feeling, a puzzled one , a confused one, a startled one, a teary one it does not matter, we felt something albeit short lived and that is the whole point.
varieties of a feeling human is capable. it is healthy to fee it makes human and brings us close together.
poetry is the doctrine of all feelings and the more we go with it and the more feelings we amass and as a result of it become alive.
poetry is a force to be reckoned with because the more that feeling we feel and the more we want for it.


or is poetry an intellectual occurrence for the mind to pick over try and ostracise for what it is word by word.
it is a mine cove and our mind wants to wonder into because there is a hidden meaning. a treasure trove awaits. but then nothing.

I know which to chose or go for.

please discuss.

[PeterL]

All verbal communications among humans is processed in the left frontal lobe of the brain, which is best known for being an area where thinking is done. While poetry is used to expressed feelings it is internationalization about feelings, rather than simply feelings themselves. But poetry tries to express things that are a little off from the standard, and that is why the forms, grammar, etc. are not standard; although they can be. But this is only Post-Romantic poetry. Earlier poetry was less involved with emotions and odd thoughts and moments.

What do you think?

[MorpheusSandman]

I think it's both. Poetry has always been about, to some degree, defamiliarizing language so that we could feel it at the same time we were understanding it. Things like rhythm, rhyme, and sound, etc. solely exist to evoke emotions through abstract patterns like music, while figurative language and imagery exist to evoke emotions through the unusual awareness of likenesses and objects. I tend to think that the poetry that most provokes us to think about and understand it is also the poetry that most provokes us emotionally, even when we (or perhaps because we) don't fully understand the source of that emotion. Wallace Stevens is a good modern example; Milton is a good early example.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Both of the understanding and feeling are useful in reading poetry...
Without understanding, what is the benefit of reading, and without a comprehensive feeling there is no tasty moment to find in reading.
Romantic, we always call romantic

[cacian]

Both of the understanding and feeling are useful in reading poetry...
Without understanding, what is the benefit of reading, and without a comprehensive feeling there is no tasty moment to find in reading.
Romantic, we always call romantic

upon reading something words to word you have in fact attained a degree of understanding. whether it fully immature or just a little is another matter but you have read it. that is part of understanding.
this is as oppose to not being able to decipher or read say Japanese because the language you do not know. no reading has been possible and therefore no understanding has been achieved.
one part of reading is understanding albeit small.

[cacian]

All verbal communications among humans is processed in the left frontal lobe of the brain, which is best known for being an area where thinking is done. While poetry is used to expressed feelings it is internationalization about feelings, rather than simply feelings themselves. But poetry tries to express things that are a little off from the standard, and that is why the forms, grammar, etc. are not standard; although they can be. But this is only Post-Romantic poetry. Earlier poetry was less involved with emotions and odd thoughts and moments.

What do you think?

I do not link language to physiognomy as though the body has gone through a dissecting machine.
to think is part of reading. in order to be able to read one has to think. no reading is achieved otherwise.

[cacian]

I think it's both. Poetry has always been about, to some degree, defamiliarizing language so that we could feel it at the same time we were understanding it. Things like rhythm, rhyme, and sound, etc. solely exist to evoke emotions through abstract patterns like music, while figurative language and imagery exist to evoke emotions through the unusual awareness of likenesses and objects. I tend to think that the poetry that most provokes us to think about and understand it is also the poetry that most provokes us emotionally, even when we (or perhaps because we) don't fully understand the source of that emotion. Wallace Stevens is a good modern example; Milton is a good early example.

the question I have when I think of Milton or Wallace is this:
did they understand what they wrote?
because whilst they left a legacy of hefty poetry they have not left anything of clues or reasons to why they wrote what they wrote.
I wondered whether after they finished writing such work did they ever think that many of their followers readers would ever achieve understanding would they ever understand.
I think that is the point.
to provoke is to ultimately offend or shock. I am not into either. I wish to read and remain neutral.

[PeterL]

I do not link language to physiognomy as though the body has gone through a dissecting machine.
to think is part of reading. in order to be able to read one has to think. no reading is achieved otherwise.

There are some parts of the brain that concentrate. I don't disect brains, but that's what fMRI studies have found. While humans have an innate capacity for spoken language, written language is an art in th broader sense, something made by humans.

[MorpheusSandman]

the question I have when I think of Milton or Wallace is this:
did they understand what they wrote?I'm fairly sure Milton knew precisely what he was writing given his mental library of knowledge. Stevens probably wrote a great deal intuitively, with only a rough idea of what he meant rather than a rigorous allegorical schematic as in, say, William Blake. However, I do think Stevens is comprehensible the more you read him and read about him. Most everything he writes can be boiled down to the ways in which imagination relates to and contrasts reality.


to provoke is to ultimately offend or shock. I am not into either. I wish to read and remain neutral.I don't know about offending, but I think all artists enjoy shocking people a bit. Shakespeare certainly did, hence the supernatural and violent elements in his plays. To shock is to upset the status quo, and art has usually been anti-establishment to some degrees.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

upon reading something words to word you have in fact attained a degree of understanding. whether it fully immature or just a little is another matter but you have read it. that is part of understanding.
this is as oppose to not being able to decipher or read say Japanese because the language you do not know. no reading has been possible and therefore no understanding has been achieved.
one part of reading is understanding albeit small.
you philosophically talk, for instance, you are an English woman and you have to read a page is written in English language but the page explains a matter is not your field.
Do you understand its content as you understand the content is related always to your field?
I think not, so understanding is a personal matter i.e. there is variance from one to another.
For our field "the poetry" as I discussed without understanding there is no benefit from reading.
If you havn't the thin soul of a poet or you haven't at least the true desire to read poetry, you will not understand even if you read the literary work for hundred time, so I want to brief the answer as :
Desire... .... degree of education.......feeling + understanding .... result to ....complete comprehension

What to do with a Japanese language. Do we here speak Japanese?