Saturday, January 09, 2010
Friday, 1/8 — 9:29 am
So—to follow up further from near the end of “free association”—why care whether or not poetic thinking can be rigorous?
Poetics can “yield [something importantly] reliable in our evolving reality...after humanity’s self-undermining of Godly metaphysicalism.”
So, again, why? And why care?
Saturday, 1/9 — 7:07 pm
In yesterday’s note (above), he’s prompting himself as probable reader—making an implicit promise to follow up, by a postured expression of
his desire to do so?
I was recollectively leaving behind Thursday’s reaffirming of the value of dailiness, in terms of Monday’s obtuse questions.
This morning, I had a more convoluted version of that simple point
(with ample vanity) and a segue on astrobiology.
That was emblematic of desire to write in some very different key.
But Saturday’s seldom a good day for grand gestures. As one wise guy noted: After “Enlightenment,” the laundry still has to be done. Etc.
-- gary e. davis --- 7:07 PM