'I'm not really sure what you mean by "using language to match the physical"' What I mean is for something happens at the information processing level, the best we can do to describe it is to invent terms such as neurotransmitter and firing (language). Something happens in the brain, we call it firing. But the modes of 'event' and 'language describing event' are different. It is a metaphysical gap (something like that). If there was a way to put 'event' down on paper. Both science and poetry, which both make representations of the world would be obsolete.

Wrong. I'd be devistated to think my homless ratchet-throated idol did not write that. Did he?

That's because no one can define "consciousness" clearly. Yet you use it willy-nilly, blundering on with absolute certainty that "consciousness" and "spirituality" are the source of a poete's creativity. Not only do you have no evidence for that stance, your stance isn't even clearly defined - not even in your own mind. It is therefore the stance of a squatting dutchman, and you'll forgive me, I hope, if I bid you and your buttocks good day, lest I too become soiled beyond belief. Good day.

Believe me, I understand. My advice - clear this one out of comments, paste something new up there and set it aside for a bit. Give yourself some time for a fresh perspective. You can edit the other anytime.

imho? still not familiar with that one. sorry.

That's the wierd thing. The actual event happened in sort of slow motion so I went space crazy in the first. I loved it that way but something still didn't seem right. I can't argue with squiggles about the crit either though. This will be the second poem I have overanalyzed/overworked, which honestly pains me more than dropping it and moving on. im so cornfused.

It has now.

"Source of the poets vision: Language, one can never hope to use language to (literally!) match the physical. One can make representations, study relationships" No. The poet uses language to portray images and ideas. Language is the means not the end. The sculpter uses rock and metal tools to create images. Do you suggest that rock and tools are the source of his/her vision? He/she starts with an idea or is sponaneously moved/inspired in a way that leads to a unique and persoanl form of expression. Where does the idea come from? What is the source of his/her inspiration? I'm not really sure what you mean by "using language to match the physical" but it seems to me that if you reject all metaphysical explanations of the poets vision and inspiration, you must be able explain every aspect of them in physical terms. I assume this would be done much in the same way one would explain how a computer works.....use of binary code to generate letters and symbols...memory storage....working memory...pre-programmed sets of instructions , etc... But even this form of explanation runs you head first into an arguement for something beyond simple physical cause and effect becuase the computer does nothing without receiving stimuli from a source beyond its physical boundries, the human mind and body.

How is the "consciousness's corollary" reported? How is it timed in relation to chemical and electrical output of the brain? How do we know it is not some other aspect of consciousness that induces the brain to physically react in a certain way? As far as I know the scientific community is intrigued by these questions and no one has really drawn any solid conclusions about the source of consciousness.

My question was is should verification be relevant to soul-believers. And bearing in mind verification of certain hypotheses comes after making assumptions that are not verified, in what sense does verification differ from what writers/ philosophers may speak of as internal consistency i.e. that an idea 'tracks'. And stop being so rude, did madam leave the TV remote out of your reach or something.

And Catullus IS an exciting writer

Yes. And the old version is still up for comparison. Thanks for noticing. not icing. hmmm.

Great name!! It is rare that I get as far south as Brunswick or Fla. I think I shall take the name and remind myself to practice a little more story telling in the future. Thanks again. Might run into you some time. Not literally, of course.