Are Poets Born Not Made?

Emotions, sensitivities, etc. aren't interchangeable. This discussion reminds me of the debate over design in the universe. An atheist physicist once said in a debate that every person was an improbable event. One in eight billion. Another physicist later corrected him that the odds of being one person out of all persons was a bad analogy in that simply being a person "won", and the arguments concerning design were essentially saying that all the other outcomes, besides one, resulted in no persons. No one is suggesting that "any" emotional state will do. But there are certain states that matter.

Dexter Gordon started out as a promising young tenor sax player. But problems with addiction drove him to squander most of his gifts. Yet he is also recognized as having made some of the most soulful recordings of all time.

Consider:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Lx3n10fkc

No one would argue that the above is technically impressive. But most persons would recognize the extraordinary feeling contained therein.

Billie Holiday was far from being technically excellent. A former prostitute, she had a horrible voice and no chops to speak of. Almost anyone alive would tell you that Ella was superior in every way--except one. Billie Holiday was capable of a monstrous amount of feeling.

But again... Billie or Dexter could feel the most incredible degree of "feeling"... but it would all be irrelevant if they could not communicate this successfully to others. Every adolescent feels the most incredible emotions. At that age they imagine they are the center of the universe. Suzy gets dumped by Johnny and imagines that it is the end of the world. She spews forth her feelings in her journal... but almost none of us would think to suggest that the resulting work is likely to be a poetic masterpiece. All that has been said here is something that should be obvious: whether one is a virtuoso, an academic, or your notion of a "natural" artist, all art demands a degree of study, practice, and discipline.

Both of the above examples are fairly unimpressive technically, but emotionally they are outstanding. To listen to those recordings and try to discuss technique is to miss the point. It's about the soul, the duende, brother. Both of those artists had hard, and in some ways disappointing, lives, and their sensitivities and emotions were central to their artistic statements. To suggest other people have emotions too is to miss the point. We're not talking about one in a million in which all the other 999,999 are winners too. We're talking one in a million in which all the other 999,999 fall short of the criteria.

I don't think the notion is to suggest that all art can be broken down or reduced to some collection of elements. It is virtually impossible to offer up a catalog defining just what exactly makes Rembrandt or Miles resonate so. If we could do that, we'd all be capable of producing the same. What is being questioned is the rather juvenile and Romantic notion that all one needs to become a masterful artist in whatever genre you choose, is some degree of strong feeling. How many horrible works of art, music, poetry etc... are produced with the utmost sincerity of a deep feeling? How many artists/poets/musicians had disappointing... even tragic lives... and yet fell far short of producing art of any lasting value?

Since the Chicago exhibit is over, just grab this one:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Tragic-Mus.../dp/0935573496

I know Stlukes dislikes the idea of natural artist, the absence of techniques, etc. Maybe because his pratic goes beyond the theoretical or romantic...

I do not reject the romantic notion of inspiration. Rather I fully agree with Picasso's statement: "Inspiration exists, but it has go to find you working". No one would think to categorize Picasso as an intellectual or an academic artist... but he recognized that the notion of the "natural artist" who never needed to explore the work of his or her predecessors, or put forth any serious effort is a myth. Mozart was undeniably a natural artist. He could churn out the most exquisite music under the most impossible of deadlines... virtually without the least need to go back and edit things. Beethoven, on the other hand, struggled... often for years... to bring a single work to completion. Rubens was clearly a natural, He hardly ever changed a brushstroke... let alone make any major shift in composition. Cezanne, on the other hand, often spent years on a single canvas... building the paint up in layer after layer until it appeared so encrusted one might have thought ikt was the remnant of an ancient fresco. His dealer spoke of visiting him at his estate, only to come upon numerous paintings in the trees. He was only temporarily perplexed, for a moment later he heard the artist bellowing a stream of profanities and then another painting came flying out of his window.

Miyako has reacted sometimes due to frustation in a eager way, but in this specific post I do not see much confusion with her argument. I suspect we all got in the middle of a more older story between her and Morpheus which is not related to this thread.

Miyako has a habit of insulting any one with whom she disagrees. Snide comments concerning other's inability to read or their lack of education ("Philo 101?") are par for the course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Every adolescent feels the most incredible emotions.

---

I think that's false. I think adolescents feel exaggerated shallow emotions. For instance, take the song "Strange Fruit" which is about a lynching. The psychological and emotional landscape requisite to write about that come with experience NOT education. It's a fairly banal notion to suggest that children lack a robust emotional palette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

At that age they imagine they are the center of the universe. Suzy gets dumped by Johnny and imagines that it is the end of the world. She spews forth her feelings in her journal

---

But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. What adolescent has come to realize that all beauty must die, must fade, and that our pleasure serves primarily to enhance our sadness? An infant cannot be said to feel deeply merely because he cries loudly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

whether one is a virtuoso, an academic, or your notion of a "natural" artist, all art demands a degree of study, practice, and discipline.

---

First, the notion of a natural artist isn't mine; it's not something I generated for the purposes of this discussion. It's a fairly conventional idea. Practice and discipline, sure. "Study" is trickier. If you mean attention to the medium, then fine. If you mean formal learning, then there's sufficient reason to doubt that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

What is being questioned is the rather juvenile and Romantic notion that all one needs to become a masterful artist in whatever genre you choose, is some degree of strong feeling.

---

I think this is your straw man. No one is suggesting that one can become, in a cultural vacuum, a great artist simply by having emotions. If someone is truly saying this, then point it out to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

How many horrible works of art, music, poetry etc... are produced with the utmost sincerity of a deep feeling?

---

I think such "horrible" works of art confuse sentiment with sentimentality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

How many artists/poets/musicians had disappointing... even tragic lives... and yet fell far short of producing art of any lasting value?

---

How many intellectuals fall short in the same way? Producing "art of lasting value" is such a rare occurrence that it might be properly termed a freakish one. I think it is wrong to suggest that because most persons who feel deeply fail to produce lasting art, it means that feeling deeply has nothing to do with art; just as it is wrong to suggest that because most persons who study art fail to produce lasting art, then it must mean that studying art has nothing to do with being an artist. Both statements seem to use the same fallacious reasoning. We could say that most artists fail to produce lasting art; therefore, being an artist has nothing to do with being an artist.

I AM suggesting that it is possible to be a good artist without any formal training, without any formal education and, in certain cases, with obvious technical deficiencies. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise, as there are too many examples to support this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
I do not reject the romantic notion of inspiration. Rather I fully agree with Picasso's statement: "Inspiration exists, but it has go to find you working". No one would think to categorize Picasso as an intellectual or an academic artist... but he recognized that the notion of the "natural artist" who never needed to explore the work of his or her predecessors, or put forth any serious effort is a myth. Mozart was undeniably a natural artist. He could churn out the most exquisite music under the most impossible of deadlines... virtually without the least need to go back and edit things. Beethoven, on the other hand, struggled... often for years... to bring a single work to completion. Rubens was clearly a natural, He hardly ever changed a brushstroke... let alone make any major shift in composition. Cezanne, on the other hand, often spent years on a single canvas... building the paint up in layer after layer until it appeared so encrusted one might have thought ikt was the remnant of an ancient fresco. His dealer spoke of visiting him at his estate, only to come upon numerous paintings in the trees. He was only temporarily perplexed, for a moment later he heard the artist bellowing a stream of profanities and then another painting came flying out of his window.

---

I think we all can agree there is not a formula (Chesterton's “There are no rules of architecture for a castle in the clouds.”) etc. There is artists (and I am not talking with judgement of vallue, I do not mind of great or not) with formal training, those who go back and analyse their precussors, those who learn by pratice, by copy, those who just follow a hunch, learn by ear, adquire knowledge with experience, with a master, etc. Does not matter much, some are more intuitive, other more analyct. And sometimes, one is both for different momments of artistic production. No formula, no rule.

Quote:

---

Miyako has a habit of insulting any one with whom she disagrees. Snide comments concerning other's inability to read or their lack of education ("Philo 101?") are par for the course.

---

Well, yes. But if anything, this is clearly a proof of her emotions, as she does not control it and maybe the negativity that she receives derives more form her answers than her proposition. I would advice her to take a breath before posting because the emotion she feels lacking while writing poetry is being used in those fights.

And that she should continue her list of 10 things. I am not going to be shocked. Brazilians are not easy to be :D

[COLOR="DarkRed"]To be frankly, Stukles, she is kind of right about this specific misinterpretation of what she said.

She did not claimed - otherwise - that she did not need formal skills or anything she may have learnt. Or that any poet needs only this. She just said without her emotions all her formal skills will be not enough for her to write poetry.[/COLOR

Seriously, I don't recall ever questioning this... nor would I. Again, we can all dissect and deconstruct and analyze what makes a work of art, and we can spend endless years mastering the formal skills and techniques and yet never achieve anything of merit. Robert Motherwell... the most intellectual and educated of the great Abstract Expressionist painters used to speak of the fact that he often feared that he lacked the duende.

You must admit there is a certain prevention... if not arrogance... in essentially proclaiming oneself to have the duende... or genius.

I agree that Lorca was very arrogant :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

I agree that Lorca was very arrogant :D

---

Perfect Riposte. There could be no better rejoinder. Bravo!

Having a duende is not being a genius. My god, even a gypsy dancer or a tribal drummer can have a duende today and none tomorrow. It is a spirit that stems from an artist's or a writer's emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Having a duende is not being a genius.

---

She's right about that.

First, the notion of a natural artist isn't mine; it's not something I generated for the purposes of this discussion. It's a fairly conventional idea. Practice and discipline, sure. "Study" is trickier. If you mean attention to the medium, then fine. If you mean formal learning, then there's sufficient reason to doubt that.

OK... study may not be the best word if we take it to mean formal study... but I stated earlier that I am not limiting learning to formal academic study. Obviously Billie Holiday learned by listening to other singers... on recordings and in clubs.

I AM suggesting that it is possible to be a good artist without any formal training, without any formal education and, in certain cases, with obvious technical deficiencies. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise, as there are too many examples to support this.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. Early on in this debate others suggested that art was the result of combination of the learned (not to be interpreted as only meaning that learned in a formal, academic setting) and that which the individual is born with. Again, there's no magic formula. If there were, there'd be far more of us recognized as artistic geniuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. Early on in this debate others suggested that art was the result of combination of the learned (not to be interpreted as only meaning that learned in a formal, academic setting) and that which the individual is born with. Again, there's no magic formula. If there were, there'd be far more of us recognized as artistic geniuses.

---

I mostly agree with this. Morpheus will probably think I'm simply beating up on him, but I really think the whole "intellectual" debacle derailed the discussion.

Having a duende is not being a genius. My god, even a gypsy dancer or a tribal drummer can have a duende today and none tomorrow. It is a spirit that stems from an artist's or a writer's emotion.

My god... she's been watching TED videos:

http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_g...on_genius.html

But I hope Miyako foot fetish does not. Specially considering Goethe also had a foot fetish.

I agree that Lorca was very arrogant

So were Michelangelo and Beethoven... yet they earned the right to be. Has Miyako?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

But I hope Miyako foot fetish does not. Specially considering Goethe also had a foot fetish.

---

did he enjoy it with the rest of the nine?:nod:

Don't forget Pushkin.:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I agree that Lorca was very arrogant

So were Michelangelo and Beethoven... yet they earned the right to be. Has Miyako?

---

Logic again. Have I said I have a duende or I am a genius? Mmmmm... three fallacies right there.

My culture, which is semi-Spanish, has a concept of duende, a ruler of emotion; thus, I understand and agree with Lorca.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

did he enjoy it with the rest of the nine?:nod:

---

I cann't tell, neither if Pushkin did. You must tell the other 9 :D

What is TED?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

So were Michelangelo and Beethoven... yet they earned the right to be. Has Miyako?

---

Look, I can't claim to know the whole story concerning Miyako, but I have the impression that she has been under siege on these forums. Can you not understand how she might be overly defensive and a tad ridiculous under these circumstances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Look, I can't claim to know the whole story concerning Miyako, but I have the impression that she has been under siege on these forums. Can you not understand how she might be overly defensive and a tad ridiculous under these circumstances?

---

Don't mind me, Stunt? People are cliquish to feel important and empowered. I'm old enough to understand that. I'm from a family of artists and writers back home. We create; we don't just talk until our mouths bubble. I know what an artist's or a writer's emotion. I also know how it is to be pushed to the margins.

I think this thread has reached its zenith.

I started this thread because of my ambivalence to apply for an MFA in Fiction or Poetry. I'm scared that after 100 thousand dollar-student loans, I'll come out of the program writing like the rest of my classmates. I saw how my cousin entered with writing science fiction and culture in mind but ended up writing unreadable postmodern fiction like some of his classmates in the 90's.

I believe there are two kinds of artists or writers, the ones with talents and the ones with skills. Talent is inborn while skill is acquired. Both talent and skill can improve to near perfection and they can also decline or diminish into oblivion.

The best analogy I think:

Born - talent - already a pencil - sharpen
Made - skill - still a wood and a graphite - made into a pencil - sharpen

The made writers have to do more effort and learning than the born ones to better their craft. But then again, over-sharpening a pencil make its tip thinner and break. That's the dilemma.

The zenith still far...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...u_fouet_01.jpg

(Wikipedia can be such useful tool)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

The zenith still far...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...u_fouet_01.jpg

---

Okay, let me use denouement then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

you have the habit of twisting my statement to support your argument. Find my post that said what you wrote:

Someone like miyako who thinks that all a poet needs is their moods, emotions, and sensibilities.

---

Look, you started the thread about "born" VS "made" poets, and you clearly consider yourself to be more in the "born poet" mold, if at all, and the only definition I've gotten out of you about the difference is that "born" poets use their moods, emotions, and sensibilities. Where am I wrong? You've given me nothing else to go on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Third: also find a post where I expressed my being a fan of Vendler. Right from the start, I've questioned your graphic mangling of the text. You've said again and again that you are the Vendler in this forum and what you've been doing is Vendler's method.

---

I think you've completely bungled the order of how this chain of events happened. The very first mention of Vendler between us was in this thread. I mention Vendler is a "formalist," and you respond here. No, you don't come right out and say you're a fan of Vendler, but you certainly seem to be vigorously defending her by claiming she's not a formalist; why put forth the effort if you didn't like her in the first place? What happened after this was in Delta's thread, where you pointed to my anagrammatic criticism (which hardly constituted the whole of what I was writing) and you asked: "I don't know what kind of a literary mind will accept these:" In response I posted three excerpts from Vendler's Shakespeare book, which you seemed to be promoting in that first thread, as well as Christopher Ricks' The Force of Poetry. So, in response to your "what literary minds accept this," I posted examples from the professors of poetry at Harvard and Oxford. It was only AFTER THAT that you posted the Dan Schneider attack in its own separate thread.

So, again, follow the chain of events:

1. I mention Vendler's a formalist

2. You *seem* to be defending Vendler by claiming she's not a formalist, and that I should "read her books," and I would see she isn't one.

3. You attack my anagrammatic criticism and ask what literary minds would accept them.

4. I post excerpts from Vendler's book on Shakespeare and Ricks' book of essays.

5. You post Dan Schneider online attack against Vendler.

So, following that chain, it hardly *seems* as if you were always against Vendler. What it seems like is that you were for Vendler until you realized she engaged in the same kind of criticism you hated in me. It *seems* like a case of sour grapes, like, initially, you thought Vendler was on YOUR side, she wasn't a formalist, then when you realized she actually did what I did, you had to turn against her, so you found Schneider's terrible article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Schneider's essay is not the only one that questions Vendler's lucidity. Read Rita Dove's.

---

Dove's and Vendler's debate was really just over aesthetic preferences, and I agree with both of them on some points. Simple fact is that Vendler prefers a narrowing of the canon, which inevitably happens anyway, whereas Dove preferred a broader view. In the end, Vendler will be right, because the majority of the poets Dove anthologized will be forgotten, while the few Vendler praises will be remembered and widely read. That's how canons work, rightly or wrongly. Though, fwiw, I do think Vendler's attack on Dove's choices was a bit out-of-bounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

What gives you the gall to call a known essayist an idiot?

---

It's called having eyes and a brain. I don't think anyone would take Schneider seriously after reading his exchange with Patrick on PoemShape. Schneider is actually a competent film critic, but he's woefully outmatched when it comes to poetry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I mostly agree with this. Morpheus will probably think I'm simply beating up on him, but I really think the whole "intellectual" debacle derailed the discussion.

---

If you agree with that, and I agree with that, is there any reason for me to respond to your last post to me? My usage of the term intellectual, which I still don't think was unfair, nonsensical, or out-of-bounds, was always equating it with those who had learned the craft of poetry, but not necessarily in a scholarly, formal, or academic way (I even stressed this difference a few times). Since most of your last post is nothing but blatant flame-throwing, I'd rather ignore it anyway.

EDIT: Well, allow me to address this, since it's the only part that doesn't resemble the ravings of a sad and desperate man:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

So if you think someone can become a great poet, quite apart from any academic structure or regimented learning, and do it ALL by himself simply by applying his innate capacities to the medium, then WHAT THE HELL is the argument about? If the only disagreement is about what "intellectual" means, then why are you so desperately trying to demonstrate the impossibility of intuitive talent?

---

Let me use two polar examples to try and clarify where I think the debate is at:

Person A: Has a basic education, leaves school after high-shcool, never formally or informally studies literature or poetry, or even reads them all that much, but likes to write, and takes up writing poetry based on nothing but that basic education and a foggy idea of what poetry is (maybe he came across a few poems in his lifetime as any average person would, or maybe they've read a few poets and have some favorites they like to emulate).

Person B: Studies poetry and literature formally in collage, graduates eventually with a masters, writes poetry as well, but will not write a single line without having some theoretical understanding of what every word connotes, what every line break signifies, how to use every device imaginable, from rhythm, rhyme, parallelism, imagery, metaphor, etc. and feels s/he can theorize why every choice is optimally suited to the expression, and has read a vast array of poetry from every era.

I think we can agree that Person A is the archetypal intuitive/born poet and Person B is the archetypal learned/intellectual poet. Where I think the debate is is in the enormous grey area that lies between A and B, really where I think the vast majority of poets lie. Not every poet has a formal education, not every poet theorizes over every (or even any) choices they make, yet there are many, like Keats, that put an inordinate amount of time into thinking on this subject. They have clearly studied, read, and thought more about the art than Person A who's only concern is for self-expression. That Keats read with the intent of learning from from the greats seems very much like an intellectual endeavor to me, the same way that any apprentice studying under any master would be, even if the master never spoke a word and the apprentice merely watched and emulated it. There is the conscious intent to learn to the craft there, and I don't know why "intellectual" has to be pushed to the farthest boundary extreme of Person B to count as being intellectual. If I know of anyone who dedicates a large amount of time to reading, learning, studying literature, even if completely informally, then I'd call them an intellectual. That you don't want to call them that is fine, but they are clearly not "born" with it either, or else they wouldn't be putting so much time and effort into reading and thinking about it to begin with, they'd just be writing all the time and never giving a thought to why they wrote what they wrote. Keats clearly did, and he commented often on his failures and WHY they were failures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

EDIT: Well, allow me to address this, since it's the only part that doesn't resemble the ravings of a sad and desperate man:

---

Okay, idiot, we are now officially at odds. I'm so sick of your uneducated, overconfident person pretending to have half a clue about what he's saying. Oh, so you think the Romantic poets are aptly described as "intellectual" when they were, in fact, rebelling against the intellectualism of the Enlightenment? The problem isn't that you're wrong about whether poets are made or born or what "intellectual" means, but rather that you need to go back and finish junior college. Or are you too busy playing poker?

You're a joke, man. You obviously have a Wikipedia education in literature and logic. You can't even use a dictionary properly or even make any point without resorting to fallacious reasoning.

You're equivocating plain and simple. I have pointed this out to you, but you insist on continuing to do so. You keep trying to appropriate Keats, perhaps the archetypal Romantic, into your implausible revision of literary history, simply to win an argument on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

If I know of anyone who dedicates a large amount of time to reading, learning, studying literature, even if completely informally, then I'd call them an intellectual.

---

If I know of anyone who dedicates a large amount of time to perverting the language just so he can be right about some non-issue, then I'd call him a dumb ***. No one cares about what some uninformed yahoo considers intellectual; people care about established conventions of language that allow them to address other persons--including uninformed yahoos. Calling Keats an intellectual because he used his brain is like calling Voltaire a Romantic because he had feelings.

Consider:

Changes in society, beginning in the 18th century and continuing into our own time, underlie the romantic movement. It starts as a reaction against the intellectualism of the Enlightenment, against the rigidity of social structures protecting privilege, and against the materialism of an age which, in the first stirring of the Industrial Revolution, already shows signs of making workers the slaves of machinery and of creating squalid urban environments.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...#ixzz1wAYZMT1L

"Romanticism" is the label for a literary-philosophical-artistic-musical-political movement which is often seen primarily as a rebellion against the stifling intellectualism and rigid logic of the Enlightenment

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/humintro.html


Get over yourself, scrub. You're wrong. Again. Now go cry in the corner. And then fill out the application for the community college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Look, you started the thread about "born" VS "made" poets, and you clearly consider yourself to be more in the "born poet" mold, if at all, and the only definition I've gotten out of you about the difference is that "born" poets use their moods, emotions, and sensibilities. Where am I wrong? You've given me nothing else to go on.

---

If you can't determine what Miyako meant in the post in question, then it's a problem with your reading, not Miyako's writing. For Chrissake, J, for whom English is a second language, understood it perfectly. Why can't you, as a native speaker, do the same?

We all know the answer. You are CONSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE of admitting you were wrong. You're a narcissist with some massive insecurity about art and culture. You have some big vendetta against Miyako, presumably, because she suggested you were wrong previously. And so you have no recourse but to demonstrate the inadequacies of your public school education in attempt to discredit her.

They have a name when for when you purposely misrepresent what someone says.

Straw Man
You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#StrawMan

I demand you cite where Miyako claimed that emotions were alone sufficient for the writing of poetry. Can't do it? I wonder why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

So, again, follow the chain of events:

2. You *seem* to be defending Vendler by claiming she's not a formalist, and that I should "read her books," and I would see she isn't one.

---

Fallacy

1. Miyako says Vendler isn't a formalist.
Therefore, Miyako is defending Vendler

Consider:

Non Sequitur
When a conclusion is supported only by extremely weak reasons or by irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and is said to be a non sequitur.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NonSequitur

You *seem* to have this sophomoric notion that including the word "seem" in an indictment excuses you from your logical responsibilities. In this, you are wrong.

Consider this similar fallacy:

1. Morpheus is attacking Miyako.
2. Therefore, Morpheus seems to hate Miyako.

The inclusion of "seem" does not avoid the error

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

It *seems* like a case of sour grapes, like, initially, you thought Vendler was on YOUR side, she wasn't a formalist, then when you realized she actually did what I did, you had to turn against her, so you found Schneider's terrible article.

---

It "seems" as though you want to kill Miyako. It "seems" as though you're the type of person who hangs corpses in his closet. It "seems" as though you might cannibalize children.

What's the matter? I said "seems".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

It's called having eyes and a brain. I don't think anyone would take Schneider seriously after reading his exchange with Patrick on PoemShape. Schneider is actually a competent film critic, but he's woefully outmatched when it comes to poetry.

---

Says the guy who thinks Keats was a big intellectual, metaphysics is medieval voodoo and the laws of logic and mathematics can, in no way, exist outside the physical universe. So if we can write Schneider off on the grounds of an exchange he had on the internet, then, surely, we can write you off too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

people care about established conventions of language that allow them to address other persons

---

You mean established conventions like those in the dictionaries that I cited that wasn't good enough for you? You know someone is desperate when they have to keep harping at someone over a choice of one word even when that person has gone to great lengths to explain precisely what they mean by that word that has several VALID definitions, one of which said person was using. But, never mind, you'd obviously rather prove my usage of the word intellectual was wrong (even if it wasn't) than actually grasp what I meant by the word and discuss whether or not it applies to certain poets. You keep calling ME a narcissist, but how narcissistic do you have to be to pretend like you are the ultimate arbiter of language and definitions? That because someone is using a word in a different way than you typically use it they must be ignorant, uneducated, and wrong, rather than you just misunderstanding how they were using it? I find it amazing that it's only you and JCamilo that has taken issue with it; everyone else seemed to understand me and my usage of it just fine, perhaps because they could grasp how I was using it in the context of poets learning the craft, so they took it to mean precisely that.

Anyway, let miyako answer for herself. SHE'S the one that started the thread with the "made" VS "born" poets dichotomy, and, thus far, I haven't read what distinction she's trying to make. If you notice, immediately after she mentioned the whole moods, emotions, sensitivity bit, I asked her, quite plainly, why is it that everyone with their own inborn moods, et al. can't write like the great poets, to which she still hasn't responded. Even Mutatis pressed her on this for a couple of posts, elaborating on my point that even though everyone has these feelings, not everyone can write good/great poetry, and she never, ever answered, eventually ending with: "Mutatis, I give up... to your control. I'm weak. hehehe " I even asked her again, after she started stressing how unique everyone's emotions/feelings are: "So everyone is a unique little snowflake; so why are some people better writers than others?"

Maybe if we're all terribly misreading poor miyako it's because she hasn't really taken the trouble to lay out precisely what she means by "made" VS "born" poets. Frankly, I don't think her sense of the two is much different than what I laid out in my last post with Person A and Person B (that, of course, you completely ignored). My entire point is, and has been since the beginning of this thread, that I don't know of many (perhaps any) poets that are considered "great" that took the Person A route, though I know plenty who took the Person B route and many more who took the in-between route.

By the way, why is it that Stlukes can say: "I stated earlier that I am not limiting learning to formal academic study... Early on in this debate others suggested that art was the result of combination of the learned (not to be interpreted as only meaning that learned in a formal, academic setting)..." yet when I said the same thing (in fact, I was one of the "others" suggesting that earlier in the thread) you felt compelled to jump all over me? Apparently, when Stlukes points out that there are multiple valid definitions of a word, and he's using it in a particular way, that's fine and dandy with you. I do that, and I'm committing some great evil against the English language.

By the way again, I never claimed you and/or J were "wrong," (J even said that he didn't feel he and I were differing and was merely using the word in different ways; if he could admit that, why can't you?) what I claimed was, quite clearly, we were all using different definitions of the word "intellectual." Here's an easy example taken from a classic: If a tree falls in a forest (you know the rest):

Person A: It doesn't make a sound because nobody hears it.
Person B: It does make a sound because it sends vibrations through the air.

Both seem to be disagreeing by stating opposite sides of the "it does/doesn't make a sound," but they're both actually right because they're simply using "sound" in different ways (one being an auditory experience, the other being acoustic vibrations). Similarly, what happened in this thread was I was using intellectual in precisely the way I've repeatedly outlined, while you and JCamilo were reading my usage and thinking of the word in different ways. You were not WRONG to do that, anymore than I was WRONG to do what I did.

But what you ARE WRONG about is continuing the dispute over the word even when I've clarified what I meant by it, and that that meaning is, indeed, a common usage that's in the dictionary. I did not make it up, I did not clearly use it in a different way THEN to how I'm saying I'm using it NOW. I've been consistent, and that consistency has support from numerous dictionaries. That you can't accept it testifies to your obstinacy with regards to proving I was wrong about something. If you're that desperate, latch on like a bulldog to the fact I stated that "innate intellectual" was an admittedly bad term, but quit harping on this one freaking word. You know (now) what I meant by it, so if you were really concerned about discussing anything (rather than just being concerned about "winning") then you would've moved on to actually discussing if Keats (or any other poets you choose) fit under that usage or not. That Keats and the Romantics were not "intellectuals" in the same way as the Enlightenment poets is obvious, but that they were not "intellectuals" in other ways is what's in dispute. You can't just arbitrarily choose one definition of a word, say someone is not that under that particular definition, and then claim they're not that under any other definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

You mean established conventions like those in the dictionaries that I cited that wasn't good enough for you?

---

You mean the definitions that demonstrated you didn't understand them since you missed that they hinged upon the inclusion of the word "intellect" whichi was the very point of contention? Dur....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Anyway, let miyako answer for herself.

---

I'll say what I want to--especially when it involves one person making fallacious accusations against another for the sole purpose of trying to shame her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

By the way, why is it that Stlukes can say: "I stated earlier that I am not limiting learning to formal academic study... Early on in this debate others suggested that art was the result of combination of the learned (not to be interpreted as only meaning that learned in a formal, academic setting)..." yet when I said the same thing (in fact, I was one of the "others" suggesting that earlier in the thread) you felt compelled to jump all over me? Apparently, when Stlukes points out that there are multiple valid definitions of a word, and he's using it in a particular way, that's fine and dandy with you. I do that, and I'm committing some great evil against the English language.

---

Why do I act differently with StLukes? Because StLukes doesn't insist upon arguing an equivocation. He says "okay, perhaps study isn't the right word"; he doesn't say "no, study is exactly the right word and here's why." Besides the disagreement over "study" is minor compared to the disagreement over "intellectual." StLukes also isn't trying to bully the terms of the conversation by equivocating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

But what you ARE WRONG about is continuing the dispute over the word even when I've clarified what I meant by it, and that that meaning is, indeed, a common usage that's in the dictionary. I did not make it up,

---

No, you did not make up the word "intellectual", you simply misused it. You also quoted a dictionary that demonstrated the error without you realizing it. You missed the fact that the point of contention was over what we meant by "intellect", which was itself used in the definition you cited. Dur...

I am continuing to dispute the usage of the word because you are still trying to co opt the terms of the conversation with it. You are trying to suggest that Keats was a "made" poet because he viewed poetry intellectually. Concede, and I'll stop kicking your butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

You can't just arbitrarily choose one definition of a word,

---

I'm not arbitrarily choosing one definition, dolt. I am using the connotation of the word, which everyone besides you understands. You can't understand this just as you can't understand the friggin dictionary definition you, yourself, cited, just as you couldn't understand the Wikipedia article you, yourself, cited. Talking to you is like talking to an obstinate five year old.

You're wrong; you lose; get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You mean the definitions that demonstrated you didn't understand them since you missed that they hinged upon the inclusion of the word "intellect" which was the very point of contention?

---

"Intellect" was not the point of contention, "intellectual" was (I went back and CTRL+F the first several pages just to confirm this, and "intellect" was never mentioned, while "intellectual" was mentioned frequently). That "intellectual" has the root word "intellect" does not mean that the two are identical. The fact that every dictionary has two separate entries for both terms, and that they are slightly different should be proof of that. Again, Merriam-Webster says quite plainly:

a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>

Here's their entry for "intellectual defined for English-language learners:"

2. intellectual noun
[count] : a smart person who enjoys serious study and thought

That is pretty damned unambiguous. That you're trying to impose the root word "intellect" on to these two is just you playing dictionary dictator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

He says "okay, perhaps study isn't the right word";

---

Way to cut off his quote. Try again, here's what he said: "study may not be the best word if we take it to mean formal study... but I stated earlier that I am not limiting learning to formal academic study."

So, allow me to appropriate stluke's qualification: "intellectual may not be the best word if we take it to mean only those who have formally studied and learned poetry... but I stated earlier that I am not limiting intellectual to formal academic study. Ironically, I said almost this exact same way earlier in the thread and, again, that wasn't good enough for you (though it is when stlukes does it).

Gee, that was easy. So we're cool now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You are trying to suggest that Keats was a "made" poet because he viewed poetry intellectually.

---

Keats is not the same Keats we know without his years of studying and critically thinking about the classics and his contemporaries, and even about his own work in terms of what worked and what didn't, as well as about the various aesthetic theories he expressed both inside and outside of his poetry. He wasn't "born" with any of that, and if you want to say it's not the product of formal learning, then I'd agree. If you want to say it's all the product of intuition and instincts then I'd disagree, as he was clearly conscious about many of these ideas. If you want to talk about whether his learning was "intellectual" it would all depend on which definition you pick. My original argument is that one can grasp something intuitive, and then think on it enough until it emerges as an intellectual concept that is rational. I'd suggest even most of the theories offered in formal learning have their roots in that kind of intuitive-to-intellectual progression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I am using the connotation of the word, which everyone besides you understands.

---

And I am using one of the denotations of the word, which everyone but you understands. Again, you don't get to arbitrarily pick a connotation and claim I'm an idiot for using a different denotation.

You're wrong; you lose; get over it. (Gee, that accomplished a lot).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

"Intellect" was not the point of contention,

---

HAHA! What an idiot. You're right. The root word had nothing to do with the actual word, even if we were all trying to point out the essence of the root word, and there were several posts explicitly discussing the distinction between mind and heart, rationality and emotion. What could "intellect" have to do with that? God, man, if you were any dumber you couldn't breathe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

That "intellectual" has the root word "intellect" does not mean that the two are identical.

---

The point of contention is whether intellectual properly connotes a reliance on reason as opposed to emotion, which is a problem still contained in the root word. Gee, over-reliance on literal interpretations and a preference for denotation over connotation. Your poetic future is BRIGHT!

For your edification: the point of contention isn't the word "intellectual", moron, but what we mean by it, which is still a problem with any definition using the root word. Durrr.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

So we're cool now?

---

I'll doubt I'll ever be cool with some second-rate obfuscator whose only skill is confusing himself. You're an idiot who understands nothing of logic or language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Keats is not the same Keats we know without his years of studying and critically thinking about the classics and his contemporaries,

---

Spare me the idiocy of you continuing to argue that Keats was some big intellectual. You're talking to someone whose primary emphasis in study concerned the English Romantics. I have little interest in watching some dolt try to appropriate them into his hilarious argument.

1. Keats was smart.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

1. Keats read lots poetry.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

1. Keats thought a lot about poetry.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

1. Keats said some interesting things about poetry.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

Fallacy. Fallacy. Fallacy.

Dude, you're hilarious.

If it's simply a disagreement about what intellectual means, then why are you so insistent about continuing the argument?

Oh! Oh! I know! Because you're a narcissist who can never concede a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

And I am using one of the denotations of the word,

---

I hear it's only the good poets who care about denotation. Good luck. Hope the poker thing works out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The root word had nothing to do with the actual word,

---

Welcome to language. That happens sometimes. I'm sure you'll learn to accept it some day.

If you want to have fun with root words, the root words of "intuitive" comes from "intueri" which means "to look at, to consider." "Intellect" comes from "intellectus" which means "discernment, understanding." I wonder how someone "understands" something without "considering" that something? Likewise, did you know that intuition and tuition share the same root word of "tueri" which means "too look at, watch over." Do you want to claim that intuition and tuition have the same meaning like intellect and intellectual because they share a root word?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

even if we were all trying to point out the essence of the root word,

---

I didn't notice any until you showed up. Again, those first several pages the entire discussion over the classification of "intellectual," not "intellect."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The point of contention is whether intellectual properly connotes a reliance on reason as opposed to emotion, which is a problem still contained in the root word.

---

No, the point of contention is over what kind of learning and thought it requires for one to be considered an intellectual. Even JCamilo admitted this: "I was using intellectual as the class of person, the scholar, academic." I even noted this afterwards: "now it seems we've shifted to discussing exactly what constitutes an intellectual artist... I think the distinction I've been trying to make is between intellectual and academic/critic, but another distinction would have to be drawn between intellectual and just "everyday thinker" or "every product of our minds" as well... most "everyday learners" do not come up with something like "Negative Capability," which is the product of much reading and reflection. But because it was done outside of the academy, it couldn't be said to be "academic" either, so "intellectual," to me, seems the right way to describe it."

I mean, I think J summed it up better than you did: "I told you we do not have much disagreement... Afterwards we developed this discussion with two pararel topics, because I found the use of the world intellectual confusing... But as I said, I can see what you want to mean and there is no need for wasting time with vocabulary discussions, considering in the end we are not claiming poets are born writing poetry... Either way, I do think you are presenting with a very specific kind of poet (or artist) but our disagreements seems to be so small relating this thread that it is better we wait another oportunity to discuss it as we are not leaving the site so soon."

After that, J and I basically settled (as far as I was concerned) whatever disagreement we had. He admitted that he was using "intellectual" to mean "academic, scholar," I expressed I was not using it to mean this, but what I stated. J understood my usage, and even if he didn't think that usage was appropriate it, he simply moved on once he understood what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

For your edification: the point of contention isn't the word "intellectual", moron, but what we mean by it

---

Duh, and I pointed to several dictionaries that explain what I mean by it and for some reason only you're privy to, you won't accept their definition or mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

1. Keats was smart.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

1. Keats read lots poetry.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

1. Keats thought a lot about poetry.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

1. Keats said some interesting things about poetry.
Therefore, Keats was an intellectual.

Fallacy. Fallacy. Fallacy.

---

So I take it you disagree with Merriam-Webster, then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

If it's simply a disagreement about what intellectual means, then why are you so insistent about continuing the argument?

---

I could ask you the same thing. The only reason I keep continuing is because you won't accept that, by golly, I'm using a word in one of the ways in which a dictionary defines it and, by golly, the initial debate was with someone who was using the word differently and, by golly, we were both using it in completely valid (merely different) ways. That you feel the need to insist someone is "right" and "wrong" rather than that were was simply a misunderstanding that was cleared up by our clarifying what we meant is a reflection on your narcissistic need to "win" the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Hope the poker thing works out.

---

It bought me my house, a high end audio system, a decent home theater, lots of CDs, lots of books, lots of movies, and lots of free time to read, listen, watch, study, and debate with fine folks like yourself. Not bad for a guy that's such an idiot, eh? :)

I don't want to join in this ruckus, so spare me. I have no more patience for this. I tried to shape this thread by injecting different line of thoughts, so we could have a rich conversation about the topic, but, unfortunately, I failed. The title of this thread should have been about "intellectual" since the latter got more attention.

This is not to side with Stunt. Morpheus, you have the passion for argument, but your logical reasoning skill is either lacking or non-existent. I have been pointing your misreadings again and again. Fallacies turn readers off. That you speak English and know the topic is not enough in an argument. You have to know logic. How can you communicate if your understanding of things is fallacious? There's still time. Read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

your logical reasoning skill is either lacking or non-existent. I have been pointing your misreadings again and again.

---

:frown2:

What about all of YOUR misreadings? Those don't count?

I have asked you countless times in this thread to clarify what you mean by "born" VS "made," and you have repeatedly declined, even when it came to Mutatis asking and stlukes asking. Nobody has been able to get a straight answer from you. The MOST we got was your spiel about emotions, sensibilities, etc. at which point I assumed that's what you meant by "made" since, afterall, that IS what the thread was about.

Plus, I truly wonder how much better my "reasoning skills" need to be when one debate is over a misunderstanding about the usage of a word and I point out that the way I was using it is listed in multiple dictionaries, and that we (me and J, then me and stunt) were just using it in different ways. Now you're just clinging onto to stunt's vacuous accusations about my (non-existent) fallacies and supposed lack of knowledge regarding logic, all of which have been predicated on gross misreadings of what I was saying. If there's anyone you should accuse of misreading, it's stunt. I could point out at least 10 examples in this thread alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Welcome to language. That happens sometimes. I'm sure you'll learn to accept it some day.

---

Don't pretend to instruct me in language, ignoramus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

If you want to have fun with root words, the root words of "intuitive" comes from "intueri" which means "to look at, to consider." "Intellect" comes from "intellectus" which means "discernment, understanding." I wonder how someone "understands" something without "considering" that something? Likewise, did you know that intuition and tuition share the same root word of "tueri" which means "too look at, watch over." Do you want to claim that intuition and tuition have the same meaning like intellect and intellectual because they share a root word?

---

The above is an example of another straw man argument. I was not claiming that words adhere to their original derivations or to this or that latinate root. You're arguing against a claim no one is making due to your perennial problem of conveniently misconstruing what others say. This is the same thing that you're doing to Miyako, and it's not simply I who am recognizing it. You're also again guilty of equivocation.

First, there can be no debate on simply a subject. Resolved: intellectual.....? That's a rhetorical vacuum that none can approach. Resolved: "intellectual" means X, however, can be a point of contention.

Sophomoric mistake #1:

You misunderstand that we can simply be arguing over a word like "intellectual" or "intellect." The truth is the problem we're having relates directly to both words because they concern the same idea. Let's go ahead and dismantle your elementary school error by listing the primary definition MW offers:

a : of or relating to the intellect or its use

This is a common rhetorical flourish employed by all dictionaries: of, relating to, pertaining to X, which is appropriate when a word is the adjectival form derived from a noun.

The first sign of a second-rate mind is when someone pretends that a rudimentary reference can wholly adjudicate a disagreement. This is what happens when 4th graders disagree: one of them looks up a word in the dictionary and says "See, I told you." I can already anticipate your second-rate obfuscator's mind: You're about to say "But you cited the dictionary first." Of course, but I used it in the appropriate fashion.

You see, you clearly demonstrate that you don't know how to use a dictionary when you completely ignore the essence of a word in favor of some secondary meaning. You also demonstrate that you're fairly ignorant of the biggest problem with language: namely, that words can only be defined with other words. This is essentially the big problem with language first proposed in the 20th Century, and for someone who pretends to understands linguistics and semiotics, this is friggin hilarious. If you're trying to get at the essence of a word, and all you can do is hang a bunch of other words one the word the one in question is derived from, you don't succeed in making the meaning any clearer.

The apparent difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "intellectual" is understanding the word "intellect". There's no way around this, and that you can't understand this demonstrates your idiocy.

Sophomoric mistake #2 (fallacy of equivocation, one of your favorites, it seems)

When I called "intellect" the root word, I did so as a courtesy to you since that's what you called it.

Consider:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

That "intellectual" has the root word "intellect" does not mean that the two are identical.

---

Then there followed a discussion about the centrality of "intellect," and then you switched this, for no reason, to a discussion of "intellectus", which ironically still contains the same problem despite all your infantile attempts to hide it.

So we have the following fallacious argument:

1. Stunt says the root word "intellect" is central to the meaning of "intellectual".
2. I demonstrated how antique roots do not mean precisely the same thing as their modern byproducts by examining the word "intellectus" (which was, itself, a false obscuring of the facts).
Therefore, stunt is wrong.

Again and again you make the SAME errors of thought. Perhaps you should try learning from your mistakes some time.

Sophomoric mistake #3

You pick the least likely candidate for intellectual revisionism: John Keats.

Consider:

Negative Capability

It can sometimes be hard to understand how someone can ‘know’ something through emotion. In our society the word ‘know’ is so strongly associated with the words reason, rationality and logic that is hard to imagine being able to know something in any other way. Sure, we can know things through language and through perception, but those are basically just two different kinds of input – in the end it’s our reason working on what we perceive or what is communicated to us through language that makes us know something.

Indeed, from a typically Western atheistic-scientific perspective, emotion and faith are actually often dismissed as ‘ways of knowing’ and are perhaps more often thought of as ‘ways of believing’ or better still, ways of coming to a belief.

However, this way of thinking does not have to be the case and, throughout history, there have been examples of people who have tried to downplay the importance of reason and emphasise how important emotion is in really knowing something, in really coming to the truth. Keats, one of the English Romantic poets of the 19th Century, believed this and, although this is a bit of a simplification, he called direct, non-rational, emotional access to the truth ‘Negative Capability’.

http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/WOKs/Em...0Capabilty.htm

Negative capability is the state of creative opposition that enables one to transcend any intellectual or social constraints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability

Negative Capability

A term used many times on this website...

'The concept of Negative Capability is the ability to contemplate the world without the desire to try and reconcile contradictory aspects or fit it into closed and rational systems.'

http://www.keatsian.co.uk/negative-capability.htm

The hilarity of your idiotic assessment of Keats is that you miss that the biggest charge leveled against him is one of ANTI-intellectualism. When your hero Richard Dawkins set out to discuss anti-intellectualism, he chose Keats as his historical target.

I can think of not a single poet who would more viciously resist the categorization as an "intellectual" than Keats. His whole friggin ethos was about the rejection of the intellect. He is the poster child for emotion in the intellect vs. emotion debate.

You seem to think J is sort of conceding the argument to you, but I think you're grossly misinterpreting his actions. Of course, I can't read J's mind, but I think he realizes that you're generally clueless about the subject and that discussing it with you further is futile. I mean, had you chosen someone else--ANYONE ELSE--we might be able to take you seriously. But you chose friggin Keats--the guy who kept insisting on a rejection of the intellect in favor of emotion! This is your "intellectual".

You're just embarrassing yourself.

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

"I have asked you countless times in this thread to clarify what you mean by "born" VS "made," and you have repeatedly declined, even when it came to Mutatis asking and stlukes asking. Nobody has been able to get a straight answer from you."

I'm curious. Can you paste your and your friends' statements that "asked to clarify born vs. made" and mine that "repeatedly declined"? Maybe my speed-reading did not catch them.

Let me give you a hint. Anything about art or literature, as far as reception is concerned, cannot be generalized. Why? Because it involves perception. Everyone has its own perception. Have you noticed my usage of I, me, and myself in this thread?

Initially, this thread aimed to elicit different perceptions, but, unfortunately, you wanted to dominate. Hence, this thread has become a space for your verbal diarrhea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The truth is the problem we're having relates directly to both words because they concern the same idea.

---

No, they concern a similar idea, not the same idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

you clearly demonstrate that you don't know how to use a dictionary when you completely ignore the essence of a word

---

Oooh, the “essence” of a word! That sounds exciting… and delicious! I didn’t know words were these mystical things that had an “essence.” I thought they were signs that referred to things, and sometimes they were signs that referred to multiple things. I thought they were things that evolved due to usage, sometimes dropping meanings, sometimes picking up meanings, sometimes still closely associated with its roots, sometimes branching off to be quite different from its roots. Silly me. I’ve been missing “the essence” of intellectual… is the essence something like the creamy center of a candy bar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

in favor of some secondary meaning.

---

”Secondary meaning?” Now we’re RANKING meanings? Your meaning is an admiral, mine’s a captain, yours wins!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

that words can only be defined with other words.

---

Yes, and the words MW uses to define intellectual are clear and unambiguous. I'll repeat them for you:

a : given to study, reflection, and speculation
b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>

Who’s obfuscating now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

If you're trying to get at the essence of a word,

---

I’m NOT trying to get to any essence! Neither are dictionaries. Dictionaries are just documentarians of usage that attempt to define words intensionally with as little ambiguity is possible. One thing a dictionary can’t do is extensionally define something (which is how we first learn words) by pointing to something and going “THAT.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The apparent difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "intellectual" is understanding the word "intellect".

---

The only “difficulty” is in your befuddled mind. That’s the only difficulty. JCamilo and I understand each other. We accepted we were using different definitions and moved on. Now you’re coming in trying to play dictator of meaning, trying to pretend that “intellectual” must be understood by understanding its root word “intellect,” but this is blatantly, egregiously, outrageously false. Sometimes root words help to clarify a word, and sometimes they don’t. Hence understanding the common definitions of “tuition” doesn’t help at all in understanding “intuition”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

1. Stunt says the root word "intellect" is central to the meaning of "intellectual".
2. I demonstrated how antique roots do not mean precisely the same thing as their modern byproducts by examining the word "intellectus" (which was, itself, a false obscuring of the facts).
Therefore, stunt is wrong.

---

I like how you conveniently label the two roots as “antique” VS “modern,” but there is a continuity, not a discrete split. One way certain words grow far away from their roots is because their compounds build up different associations over time. So the same way that “intuition” and “tuition” can start out meaning very similar things, but one comes to mean something completely different than its root, is proof of how such events occur. While “intellectual” is not AS FAR away from “intellect” as “intuition” and “tuition,” the idea that the associations have grown away from the root is undeniably. They still both have a similar meaning of learning, but one refers to a certain faculty of learning, the other refers to people who have learned, or even those that engage in “study, reflection, and speculation.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Consider:

[I]Negative Capability

---

Those were some nice links, but it seems to me that many are extrapolating far beyond Keats’ one and only usage of the term, which is simply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ”Keats”

I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, upon various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason - Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.

---

That Negative Capability is a potent argument against “fact and reason,” and in favor of “being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts” is undeniable, but the way in which Keats REACHED this theory was entirely intellectual. “Several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement…” Gee, does that not sound like an intellectual process he’s describing? Does it not sound like the product of someone who is “given to study, reflection, and speculation?” That Keats is arguing for anti-reason and anti-fact does not mean he is being an anti-intellectual as he is doing so, as his entire formulation, the entire process that allowed for that formulation, was entirely an intellectual endeavor, one achieved by his reading and reflecting on Shakespeare, his “disquisition” with Dilke, his reading and disagreement with Coleridge. All of these circling around “the life of the mind,” all of them from “a smart person who enjoys study and thought.”

Again, that you are equating an intellectual with someone who has to consciously theorize about everything, like a Coleridge, is your own usage. That JCamilo was using it to simply denote “academics, scholars” was his. That, for me, it’s defined by people who are “given to study, reflection, and speculation” and who “enjoys study and thought” is mine that I do not limit to people who feel it necessary to develop everything into some formal, academic theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

your hero Richard Dawkins set out to discuss anti-intellectualism, he chose Keats as his historical target.

---

He’s not my hero, and all this tells me is that he had his own definition of intellectualism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

His whole friggin ethos was about the rejection of the intellect.

---

Yes, and he did so while being quite intellectual about it! Gotta love the irony! Much like his statement that: "If poetry comes not as naturally as the leaves to a tree, it had better not come at all" even though poetry did not come so easy to him and he suffered more than one failure and setback, even giving up on certain works, and worked very hard and diligently at refining his aesthetic, style, and thematic material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

You seem to think J is sort of conceding the argument to you, but I think you're grossly misinterpreting his actions.

---

Would you please listen to yourself? “(I) think J conceded the argument to me”? I quoted him exactly, and I happen to agree: I don’t think there was an argument to concede because we didn’t even really disagree. We were merely using two different definitions of the same word, and once that difference was cleared up, there was no disagreement. There’s nothing to concede, nobody won, nobody lost. Good grief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Oooh, the “essence” of a word! That sounds exciting… and delicious! I didn’t know words were these mystical things that had an “essence.” I thought they were signs that referred to things, and sometimes they were signs that referred to multiple things. I thought they were things that evolved due to usage, sometimes dropping meanings, sometimes picking up meanings, sometimes still closely associated with its roots, sometimes branching off to be quite different from its roots. Silly me. I’ve been missing “the essence” of intellectual… is the essence something like the creamy center of a candy bar?

---

The essence of a word is a metaphor--something that is likely to be difficult for a literalist goon with a Cliff Notes understanding of literature. I find it hilarious that some moron who pretends to be an expert in linguistics always resorts to a literal interpretation and quoting from the dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

”Secondary meaning?” Now we’re RANKING meanings? Your meaning is an admiral, mine’s a captain, yours wins!

---

A wonderful demonstration that you have no clue. I wonder what all those organizational letters and numbers mean. Perhaps you should try actually reading all the documentation in the front of a dictionary that can help explain to you how it is organized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Who’s obfuscating now?

---

You, as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

The only “difficulty” is in your befuddled mind. That’s the only difficulty. JCamilo and I understand each other. We accepted we were using different definitions and moved on. Now you’re coming in trying to play dictator of meaning, trying to pretend that “intellectual” must be understood by understanding its root word “intellect,” but this is blatantly, egregiously, outrageously false. Sometimes root words help to clarify a word, and sometimes they don’t. Hence understanding the common definitions of “tuition” doesn’t help at all in understanding “intuition”.

---

Let me rephrase it for you. I suspect J is trying to avoid your obvious ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Again, that you are equating an intellectual with someone who has to consciously theorize about everything, like a Coleridge, is your own usage. That JCamilo was using it to simply denote “academics, scholars” was his. That, for me, it’s defined by people who are “given to study, reflection, and speculation” and who “enjoys study and thought” is mine that I do not limit to people who feel it necessary to develop everything into some formal, academic theory.

---

Yeah, I'm equating the two things because they are equatable. There's an historical conversation about intellectualism in the 18th and 19th Centuries that I wouldn't expect a poker player reading Semiotics in 30 Minutes in between hands to understand. And Keats was a MAJOR component in that discussion. The problem here is you're some uneducated dolt ignorant of the fact that "intellectual" is precisely the wrong word to use in this context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Yes, and he did so while being quite intellectual about it! Gotta love the irony!

---

It isn't irony, but a contradiction, two things dullards often mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Would you please listen to yourself? “(I) think J conceded the argument to me”? I quoted him exactly, and I happen to agree: I don’t think there was an argument to concede because we didn’t even really disagree.

---

I think J was simply being nice. I think J realizes that anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the subject would realize how inappropriate the comment is.

You also flatly accused J of bringing up the word intellectual in the first place. This is simply more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty. You're a narcissist who has to obscure all of literature just so he can be right. I hope you know more about poker than you do literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

I'm curious. Can you paste your and your friends' statements that "asked to clarify born vs. made" and mine that "repeatedly declined"?

---

You on Page 4: "born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two."

Several responses:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=105
http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=107
http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=102

You didn't answer any of them that I saw.

You on Page 10: "I also don't write at my whim. Without my mood, I can't think of apt words to use. Without my sensitivity, I am blind to the images in my head. Without my emotions, my metaphors are stale. My writing skill may not be natural or inborn, but my mood, sensitivity, and emotions are."

Several replies:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=164
http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=168
http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=196
http://www.online-literature.com/for...&postcount=212

You replied to Mutatis once, then stopped. You never replied to my simple question, and you seemingly ignored Stlukes.

Finally, many pages later you say: "I believe there are two kinds of artists or writers, the ones with talents and the ones with skills. Talent is inborn while skill is acquired. Both talent and skill can improve to near perfection and they can also decline or diminish into oblivion.

The best analogy I think:

Born - talent - already a pencil - sharpen
Made - skill - still a wood and a graphite - made into a pencil - sharpen

The made writers have to do more effort and learning than the born ones to better their craft. But then again, over-sharpening a pencil make its tip thinner and break. That's the dilemma. "

Which seems to be what most of us were saying from the beginning of the thread, so it's a little frustrating that you only finally decided to mention this on Page 17. But even here, how does one separate "talent" and "skill," what is "inborn" from what is "learned"?

Morpheus, you failed again.

Read what I wrote. Those are my opinions, perceptions, and views.

Ex.

"born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two."


If I want to make that a general statement, I would have written it as:

"born poets fvck readers awake, made poets fvck readers asleep. Boredom is what separates the two."

Misreading again. Aren't you all-in yet?


By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to my last post. I am not writing in French. Understand my question. I see two fallacies involved already besides argument by verbosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman

Which seems to be what most of us were saying from the beginning of the thread, so it's a little frustrating that you only finally decided to mention this on Page 17. But even here, how does one separate "talent" and "skill," what is "inborn" from what is "learned"?

---

There's no contradiction in what she's saying. You're just making poor assumptions in order to pretend otherwise. Your accusation was that Miyako was clearly stating that all one needed was emotions to write poetry. I have already demanded you cite where she said this. You have failed to do so. You are again guilty of fallacious reasoning.


Any further response without citing where Miyako stated that all anyone needed were emotions to write poetry, is evidence of your dishonesty.