Showing posts with label Symbol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Symbol. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Strings of Thoughts

Recognizing I’ll never have time to put in finished prose or verse all the things I’d like to explore, I’m starting some strings of thoughts unfinished as of the dates entered below.  I’d enjoy hearing others’ responses to any of the strings.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Originalism and the Fall of Icarus



Well, here we go again. With Neil Gorsuch as the current Supreme Court nominee, once more we hear praises of “originalism” as a judicial interpretive philosophy. As Gorsuch puts it, judges should “apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be . . . .” Since law generally looks forward to govern future and not past behavior, and since context drives meaning in much more complex ways than Gorsuch’s words suggest, I’m amazed that people take this backward-looking and overly-simplistic philosophy seriously. I’ve written at length about the problems with such an approach but now also wonder if an old painting might more quickly dispatch such error.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Blake Within Blake Within Blake Without End


As I have written before, the great William Blake magnificently employed signs beyond mere words in his poetry.  His powerful illustrations of verse add much additional meaning to his work.  As I have noted before, his symbols such as words are greatly supplemented by other types of signs such as the iconic signs of his drawings.  He applied these same principles in reverse in his great illustrations of the verse of other poets such as Thomas Gray and Edward Young.  Such illustrated verse injects blocks of symbols within Blake's icons, and it can be fascinating to replace these blocks of others' symbols with additional iconic expressions by Blake himself.  Blake's illustrations repeat common themes and can build on each other in such fascinating exercises.  I think Blake would enjoy seeing others doing this with with his icons, and I would enjoy seeing how others might attempt the endless possibilities of such substitutions.  For example, in the illustration above I have replaced Gray's verses about the "Stern Rugged Nurse" with one of Blake's illustrations of Urizen, the severe god of reason who traps the imagination with his compasses and strict categories.  The compass in fact is an awful symbol for Blake.  It's no accident that the "Stern Rugged Nurse" has one in her hand just like Urizen.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Beyond Words Alone: Poets as Artists of the Intentional


 

In his wonderful The New Book of Forms, Lewis Turco tells us that poets “focus on mode, on language itself.”  Focusing on language, a poet in Turco’s view is therefore an “artist of language; his or her concentration is upon the language itself.”  Taken this way, “[p]oetry can thus be defined as the art of language.”

Though these definitions of poets and poetry are correct as far as they go, they do not go far enough. Poets are artists of the intentional; they are artists using signs that point to things beyond the signs themselves.  Since words are not the only signs, why should poets limit themselves to words?  Using C.S. Peirce’s terminology, there are in fact three kinds of signs: symbols (arbitrary signifiers such as words), icons (signifiers such as paintings that resemble what they signify), and indexes (signifiers like photographs or weathervanes that participate in what they signify).  In the realm of symbols, why should poets limit themselves to words?  In the broader realm of signs, why should poets ignore icons and indexes?  They should not of course, and William Blake gives us excellent proof.   

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Ballade of Charles Sanders Peirce: That Common Measure of the Number Three (An Addition to "The Apology Box")


      Ballade of Charles Sanders Peirce

A "candle" burns a finger, lights a room--
The only sense that "candle" has is how
It might unfold in our experience.
Experience is "firstness" unified.
It's "secondness" upon division.  And
It's "thirdness" in relating separate parts.
Three categories mix.  We'll often see
That common measure of the number three.

A "candle" is a sign one can dissect.
Such word's a signifier pointing to
An object and a meaning of the word.
Since arbitrary, words are symbols though
Resemblance also signifies (icons)
As does participation (indices).
In parts and types of signs, again we see
That common measure of the number three.

We'd waste our time to doubt a sign unless
We're given cause within experience.
If so, we question what is plausible.
We then inquire what might be probable.
That done, we then examine likelihood.
In threes, hypotheses, deductions, and
Inductions wrestle doubt.  Again we see
That common measure of the number three.

James erred in his conception of the truth.
Instead, life's trinities are tilting toward
Real truth that casts a shadow we can see:
That common measure of the number three.


© Harold Anthony Lloyd 2016
  
The current contents of "The Apology Box" can be found here.