I don’t know jack but Alan Watts knows some stuff

Alan Watts.  

I heard of him before in some of my readings of Gary Snyder. I am pretty sure that Snyder wrote about Watts in letters to Allen Ginsberg.  Watts was located on the west coast and I know that both Snyder and Ginsberg attended school on the west coast as well.  I still have some more reading to do but I am pretty sure that there is some influential connection between Watts and Snyder.   When I read Snyder’s letters, I get the same feeling when reading Watts work. They both seem to have the personality of feathers. Their words are light and playful and they always seem to have it all figured out and not a care in the world. 

Today I was reading Watts ideas on “form”. Watts discusses the idea of most of us on this planet have these preconceived methods of thinking that are as Watts puts it “unexamined”. We don’t really question any of these methods of thinking. Form is one of these “unexamined” methods. He goes on to write on about how science continually breaks down things into smaller things. Classifications into classifications. If you take a chunk of a table and put it under a microscope and then get a more powerful microscope the classification of the table will only continue to spread. Which, when thinking about the universe, supports the notion that our studies of universe will continue to into other studies. The universe will always be an enigma. The proverbial dog that chases its own tail. 

I am not doing justice to any of this man’s work but I thought I writing it down would help me with my own thought when wrestling with his various concepts. Here is one of his lectures.


Jean Baudrillard

November 14, 2018

Reading Baudrillard is incredibly depressing! Been reading his work lately, mostly SimulationsHis work is difficult for me to get through and it is even more difficult for me to write about.  What I can say is that Baudrillard’s overall point is that reality or rather truth has ceased to exist. Everything has become a simulation of what was once the human race’s reality.

Read this quote…

“The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth it is the truth which conceals that there is none.”

The simulacrum hasn’t replaced reality, it is simply all that we are left with. In his book he goes through an assortment of examples, and I am not sure if I agree completely BUT there is certainly something in his words that leave me feeling uneasy.

Just google him and check out some of his ideas.  Good exercise for the brain.

Reading Rainbow

Reading Rainbow….That is what I have been riding on since I got to Japan. I have a nasty habit of just forgetting about books I have read, due to never discussing them with anyone. I figure why not write about some of them.

Today will be Pound’s ABC of Reading.

Don’t know about Pound click here for a quick run down.

When I was in university I had a thing for enlightening writers who didn’t give a care about what other people think.  They kinda of reminded me of hip hop artists. The masses (including creators and non-creators) stay criticizing these two groups of people, while at the same time consuming their work and celebrating them.  I personally cannot understand how someone who has never written a book, created a song, painted a portrait can have such harsh criticism as that a book is trash, a song is garbage or that a painting is horrible.  If you ever sat down and tried to do any of those things you’d acquire a new found respect for those that do, even if those artists were not considered the top dog in their respected industry.  I just think if you didn’t like that book then it just wasn’t for you…It may not be as terrible as you think…I mean how good are you at creating the thing you are criticizing?

This is why I really enjoy reading Pound’s ABC of Reading. Pound gives a breakdown the strategies of studying literature. And also kinda says if you don’t create anything at a high level sit your ass down and keep out of grown artists’ business.

The book is written simply enough but there are a ton of terminology that still give me trouble to this day.  One of my favourite parts is in the first half, when Pound is explaining the three ways to write great literature:

  1. phanopoeia – throwing the object (fixed or moving) on to the visual imagination.
  2. melopoeia – inducing emotional correlations by sound and rhythm of the speech.
  3. logopoeia – inducing 1 & 2 by stimulating associations with other word/word group

I still find myself trying to look for examples of phonopoeia.

I mean I wouldn’t suggest reading this unless you want a reason to flick your nose high and look down at people haha. Or if you just don’t have an interest in studying literature.