[Robert Pecotte]

Well...spirit and emotion are not the same thing and intellect and knowledge are not the same thing. The 'soul' or 'spirit' contains the Intellect, Memory and the Will. The passions (emotions) are part of the sensitive appetite which functions through the body and influences the Will. Thus, they are also called feelings. The Intellect is supposed to inform the Will of either the 'good' or the 'evil' (or greater or lesser good) of a desired act or object that the Emotions are moving the Will toward. Example: I experience the emotion of anger based in an injury caused by another: do I harm that person back or not? Is harming the person back always the proper choice? My intellect needs to inform my will whether or not the emotion of anger ought to be acted on or released.

I have no problem with poetry that expresses emotions (my poems always do,) but this one certainly did not do that for me. In point of fact, I thought that this poem required too much of the intellect to be understood beyond some vague idea of what it might mean. The first couple of lines made me think of 'homeless people' but after that...not at all. For a poem to produce the desired emotional response, it needs to be understood. Otherwise, the emotional content is missed or replaced with confusion.

I have no problem with people liking this poem, but to say that the ‘intellect’ takes a secondary place in poetry is a ridiculous statement. And remember, I do not equate the Intellect with ‘fact” (or knowledge with mere fact.) I’m not endorsing Spockean poetry (or Leonard Nimoy’s.)

Fr. RP

PS: I replied to the question of emotion over intellect: Wendy raised it.

[David Anthony]

I'm guessing this is ekphrastic.
Could you post a link to the picture, Rick?

[Rick Mullin]

Really, it's not intended as a guessing game. I would tell you the source if it were an ekphrastic poem. I like to make that kind of thing explicit.

I don't mean to be coy, but I really can't explain this. I especially like Michael Cantor's description of how he reads it, however. While I didn't intend any of the specific details he describes--those are really for the reader to come up with--I sense he sees himself. As I said, the first person plural is what this is about. From there, I'll take any interpretation, and may come up with several of my own.

Thanks for the reply Fr Robert. I understand what you're saying and not contesting it. I just think it is an intriguing question, similar to, but not equal to, the meat of the Inness credo.

RM

[Janice D. Soderling]

OK, I'll bite. What is the Inness credo?

(Duh, I must be really dumb.)

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Janice,

It's in my previous comment:

"Knowledge Must Bow Before Spirit"

Not to be confused with the Ellington Principle. For that, see "Minimalism".

Rick

[Jan D. Hodge]

"Knowledge Must Bow Before Spirit"

Isn't that Glenn Beck's credo?

[wendy v]

The arts are of course peppered with such warnings:

God guard me from those thoughts men think
in the mind alone;
He who sings a lasting song
Sings from the marrow bone

(Yeats)

Love, love, love. That is the soul of genius. (Michelangelo)

The Spirit is the Conscious Ear…

For other Services—as Sound—
There hangs a smaller Ear
Outside the Castle—that Contain—
The other—only—Hear—

(Dickinson)

For all this help of head and brain,
How happily instinctive we remain….(Frost)

Etc.

The intellect is assumed. It's a powerful force. It’s no secret that it wants to rule the kingdom, wants to rule each and every poem. Thus all these warnings from the masters, or so it seems to me. It isn’t easy to bring such elusve concepts forward in a workshop environment. Imagination, intuition, impressionism, bah ! People seen to take really serious offense. But it’s not as if the subject is scandalous, or new to the arts.

I love the Inness.

[Janice D. Soderling]

Knowledge Must Bow to Spirit

Right, I did read that, but it didn't register that it was a credo, i.e. creed.

1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.
2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions.

It seemed to me to be one of those intellectually unclear things that can mean anything, but, hey, what do I know?

Crossposted with Jan D.

[Rick Mullin]

Oh, I think it's clear as a bell, Janice. It's what we have to do.

Jan--I never saw they guy's paintings. Actually, from what I've seen of the him, I think he is preponderantly cerebral. He hasn't got much to work with brainwise, but there seems to be none of what George I. would call Spirit.

Think about it. Inness is basically advising the artist to surrender to nature before sweating the technique. Me Likee.

And congrats Jan!

RM