User:RD/9k/Some prefer poetry to science (Q36,10)
Main entries
- poetry (literary flair) / romanticism (artistic flair)
- Some prefer poetry to science
Fiction and "humanities people"
poetry (literary flair)
/ poetry (lyricism); lyricism (arts) / poetry (expressive style of creating art or narrative form; expressive form of framing used in any form of storytelling; poetic quality of mythic narratives) / romanticism (artistic flair) -> this motif is supposed to represent that moment when somebody lays down a really good aphorism whether in fiction or non-fiction and you slam the edge of your hand on the table and you say "poetry."
the concept is rather general and may be a little hard to nail down. I'd define this Item somewhat more precisely as the concept that anything that represents wisdom or at least becomes memorable within art history "should be poetic", that "being poetic" is a necessary thing for human life and something like an account of a historical event is less good if it doesn't feel poetic. what "poetic" exactly is within those boundaries, I'm not sure I entirely know. I would vaguely say that it involves a departure from material reality and the ability to wildly define the relationships between words or images however you want but in a way that must be "empowering". so, "being poetic" has a strong overlap with the general concept of Idealism.
Some prefer poetry to science
/ Some people prefer poetry to science / myth, religion, dreams, visions ... the dark waters Freud fished to find his conception of human nature (Roszak 1968) [1] ->
the answer is to give them proletarian poetry. think about it this way: fantasy books are poetry. they tell what are supposedly life lessons or at least meaningful statements about art through really thick, opaque, poetic framings. I think in some senses some people really need to be hooked into the poetic fantasy or history-myth that workers fight terrifying battles and the owners right next to them in their own town can be "kings of darkness".
Spiritual people are theatrical
/ Spiritual people aren't delusional; they're highly cultural / Spiritual people aren't delusional, they're just deeply absorbed in culture, poetry, and romanticism ->
this becomes very apparent if you read enough secondary-source Christian media totally detached from the opinions of any Christians as if it all fell out of the sky yesterday and you're the first person that ever saw it. the point of the stories is poetry. to tell things that would make sense said another way through really opaque poetry. that's just it.
the reason it's so frustrating to try to get people out of religion is this. religion was never about the supernatural. people don't necessarily care about a supernatural or afterlife existing whatsoever. the true draw of religion that keeps sucking everybody in is culture. religion is culture. people are really obsessed with culture, they absolutely love culture. (while I'm one of the only people in existence who doesn't; I hate culture and love math.) a normal person sees a poetic description of some Lived Experience purportedly universal to multiple people's lives in a bible story or a novel and goes crazy for it, they flip out about how much they related to it and go pour out their emotions of how much they love whatever simple trope of "love your neighbor", "lesbians got together", etc with however many other people who are all there just because they're flipping out over a little shred of poetry. and these normal people intrinsically trust each other and trust that they each belong there flipping out over a line of poetry and it's completely expected nothing bad will happen and they won't spontaneously turn out to be enemies because they come from different subpopulations. if that happens they just go "it's unthinkable for that to be able to happen" and act quickly to suppress it and crush the way things really work. (not that that's a terrible thing, should they actually succeed.) because they're totally wrapped up in poetry, they're under poetry's spell. people get together around a bit of poetry and become spellbound that whatever people they clustered together can become a stable ongoing countable culture and a "community". and from there they can get so wrapped up in poetry and "community" that they even start to have serious faith in their poetry-group out-enduring every human being who doesn't belong to it. this, I feel, partially explains the typical narrative around the New Deal and "fireside chats". people keep bringing up the fireside chats because they love the poetry of it. the simplicity of just collecting people together and sharing the same bit of culture and poetry, and thinking that this will supposedly make all of the suffering of the United States bit by bit slowly go away. but then it doesn't. the events that come next reveal people's attachment to poetry to be a mythology. it's revealed that the most innocuous case of people gathering around a national campfire and uniting together around poetry is a Cartesian system of reasoning that doesn't account for the existence of two separate plural groups in conflict with each other. the ignored group not integrated into the poetry gets upset and Zinovievizes the Roosevelt followers and the whole thing comes crashing down. and this, I think, is a microcosm of all of Liberal-republicanism. the human brain really isn't built for intuitively understanding separable multiplicity. the whole artistic, cultural, poetic, spiritual mode of thinking practically always fails to catch the existence of whole different countable cultures with whole different internal realities.
Fiction and Materialism
Anarchists would rather read fiction than history
-> hypothesis. can we successfully teach anarchists historical materialism with enough Warrior cats?- Mathematics predicts reality if and when it amounts to a very precisely-worded Materialist philosophy; this is to loosely imply that mathematics is not fully distinguishable from language, and that language can predict the physical processes of the material world if and only if, when and only when, it is fully as precise as mathematics is -> this is what you tell people if they pull a "Caine" and try to insist that mathematics is an arbitrary thing that can be defined any way and therefore it isn't the way to escape from simple empirical observations of the present not being able to predict the future.
I don't think the observation that language itself can hold mathematical models and make Materialist predictions (or 'pataphysical Idealist predictions) bothers me. it just provides a very solid foundation for understanding how fiction is written, and how political theories are fundamentally similar to the concept of social processes in fictional works in the case they actually mention anything happening on a large scale and not just to individuals. if human beings can accept that fiction contains causality, and certain events are more likely in a fictional setting than others, they must accept that political theories can truly contain causality, and can in some cases truly predict the real world.
Does two flames plus two ice cubes equal four ice cubes? + ?? = this. Fictional events happen because the author said so
/ Fictional events only happen because the author said so / Details in fiction only exist because the author said so / (9k)Nobody can predict Sans Deltarune
/ Because a lot of the events in Deltarune are psychological in nature, players can't predict what the events of the next chapters will be using the early chapters because they can't predict what the characters are going to be thinking / (9k) ->
this has to be false because if it were true it would be impossible to write stories and have readers be able to tell whether something is broadly in character. ... it would be impossible for people to say "this fan fiction has mischaracterized Sans" or "this fic has mischaracterized Papyrus". but people say that all the time. how do they know what's in character if they aren't performing an act of prediction?
Related
Ideology codes
- (none)