Sunday, April 15, 2007

Frank Sauce

This blog entry is a response to some comments made at my blog entry displaying the similar triangles poem titled “The Lotto”

I appreciate you stopping by and I enjoy engaging your comments in some discussion even though you didn’t really leave much behind. I took the liberty to stop by your blog to try to understand your point of view in order to decipher your comments. I am going to assume from your blog entry, concurrent with your comments on my blog, that you are frustrated with the attention given to Ron Silliman’s idea of torque in poetry as well as being annoyed with my blog posting of a way to look at 'torque in poetry'. (Please notice I said 'a' way not 'the' way) Furthermore it seems that Ron's blog brought you to mine.

Your first comment was, “mathematics is objective”

I now ask you to notice the analytic geometrical equation for a circle “x squared plus y squared equals the radius squared.”

This is a mathematical description of a circle which is pure, and clear furthermore, it is as accurate as the human mind can fathom. There is no object in the universe that exists that matches this equation. There are plenty that very roughly approximate it, but none that match it. Even if you are not familiar with the analytic geometric equation above, you probably are aware that the ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference is equal to the irrational number pi. I would also guess you are aware that pi is not an object. Mathematics is a language not an object. You can not find pure math in nature any more than you can find the word ‘tree’. The tree is the object not the word. Pure mathematics is not objective.

I think where you and many others may be having trouble is that you have never seen applied mathematics used for connotation. Therefore it does not exist. I ask you to slow down for a moment and ask why not? I find this argument to be the same as someone who believes that a child should always stay inside the lines while coloring in a coloring book. Thinking that a mathematical equation must be used only for denotation is a paradigm that mathematical poets want to shatter. The equation is merely a logical structure that can be used for anything including metaphor.

After reading your blog entry I think I see another problem that you may have. It seems that when you see mathematics you automatically think “science”, “definitions”, and “laws”. I think it is safe to say that ‘mathematical poets’ have no more use for these terms than traditional language poets. (No less use as well) My work in particular may express something within a logical framework and it may even be philosophical however; it is not and was never intended to be science. I will say it again, “mathematics is merely a language.”

Your next comment was, “this poem is subjective”

Yes however, as I pointed out Pure math is subjective as well.

Your next comment was, “the symbols are obvious and cliché “

You really haven’t given me much to work with so I have decided to address this in two ways. My first response will assume that you fully understand the logic and the aesthetics in the mathematical structure of the poem. My second response will assume that you do not understand the logic nor the aesthetics employed in the structure.

My first response:
You have actually illuminated one of the difficulties when choosing the descriptive elements in a mathematical poem. The more literal the words used in the poem then the more clear and readable the intention becomes, yet one always runs the risk of being cliché. Of course this can be said in traditional poetry as well for you can become so narrow in your attempt at being descriptive that you become cliché. Because mathematical poetry is so new to many I have decided in many cases to focus on the beauty in the mathematical relationships between the elements as opposed to the verbal expressions within that structure. Many times I place a pedagogical spin to a poem in hope of spawning interest. However, here is a case where it may have backfired.

My second response:
Since you don’t understand the mathematical language it is really difficult to take your response to heart. It is much like listening to a person passing judgment on French poetry while not knowing the French language.

The poem "The Lotto" where you left your comment has the structure of what I call the similar triangles poem. My next blog entry will be dedicated to illuminating the structure of the similar triangles poem such as the one discussed in this blog entry.


Frank Sauce said...

At first reading:


I'll come back to it when I'm sober . . . promise!

Thank you for your time and it's not that I don't appreciate what your doing. It's interesting and I want to think about it more.

Once again, thank you and I appreciate, VERY MUCH, your time and consideration.

More later,


Frank Sauce said...

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective [in this sense an adjective] opinion."

An object can be subjective, but a subject cannot be objective

somewhere in here is a usurption of a proof for true

A poet could " . . . spend an entire career ..." mapping the meanings between "the" and "A"

"Pure mathematics is not objective"

Applied mathematics explains relationships of real or physical objects.

Pure mathematics, however, is not/can often be non-axiomatic

It may not be a physical object, but an abstract concept, which sometimes becomes an object, whether common or rare that is more real then a physical object

Frank Sauce's comment was off-the-cuff and this is consequent

Machine seen screen fingers meme eyes name mind

The eye is objective, the I is subjective

An electron doesn't exist until it is measured, but pure math states its mass must exist in other possible moments

Frank says, "I don't like proofs without a 'Z' and 'T'," because he says, "I need space and time for it to be real"

Time is not real, but it's a fact of life

Using vistas and valleys of symbols to reprint without permission where permissions need not be permitted

What to do when the 'new' is already known?


"you are frustrated with the attention given to Ron Silliman’s idea of torque in poetry"

Frank Sauce's says RS's torque is good and valuable, his problem is a value sometimes implied in the usage of torque

Unread too for beginners' archive to explore an unabhorred moment

FAQ doesn't exist here

Do we need to name to know and what is the value of a name when the object or idea or emotion it names is already known though unnamed?

Doesn't poetry give possible names to the unknown or unknowable?

The moment of the mass is pure math

But what of the perfect circle?

The Navajo make an intentional mistake in every blanket, but not every moment is a blanket made by human hands or conceived by a human mind

Stack overflow at line: 0

The Lottery, when I coulda been stoned

Here, every sound and their moments, is attended here

"Pi is an irrational real number"

The pie I ate last night now exists in your mind, too. What kind of pie it was I can't remember and neither can you

Visit the National Gallery of Writing