Thanks first of all to Danny Ocean and DJ_Madcap for realising that this topic is total shit.

Secondly Psy-T for writing stuff like

"well yeah, trance is made for the underground... while these supposed 'trance' tunes are made for... well... you guys" this.
Are you fucking stupid? Let the people listen to what they feel like dude.

.....People like you I would bloody punch in the face, just get bloody fucked and try being smart somewhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by merusame Thanks first of all to Danny Ocean and DJ_Madcap for realising that this topic is total shit. Secondly Psy-T for writing stuff like "well yeah, trance is made for the underground... while these supposed 'trance' tunes are made for... well... you guys" this. Are you fucking stupid? Let the people listen to what they feel like dude.

ermm who am i keeping from listening to any music? are you fucking stupid? apparently so.

quote:

Originally posted by merusame .....People like you I would bloody punch in the face

i'd love to see you try.

quote:

Originally posted by merusame just get bloody fucked and try being smart somewhere else.

i do get fucked and i am smart at other places as is, and i apologise i can't project these things on to you.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T apparently you haven't noticed how inconsistent you have been on your position here, so allow me to remind you. when i suggested a poem could in fact have an 'official' interpretation, and suggested the author as the determinating authority on it, you replied that i should learn something about literature.

But my point is that most authors don't lay down official interpretations, and poetry that does have one interpretation tends be very simplistic. A poet may not actually have the most reliable interpretation of their own poem, if you want to use your own philosophy on it. This can be due to both the failure of someone to analyse their own feelings accurately, the haziness of the meaning they're actually aiming for and also that different people may actually envisage the poet's point better than the poet themselves can. However, there's no way of determining the truly most accurate interpretation. So, as I said, the poet is the last word on how correct someone's interpretation is, but that doesn't mean the poet will ever lay down the official interpretation.

Just an example:

A poet writes a poem, with a meaning. Say it's about the painfulness of racism. Somebody interprets it completely wrongly, and the poet can say "That's not what I was intending you to think at all." However, somebody else reads it. Say the poet uses the word "garden" at a point. Now there is no universal definition of garden in terms of imagery: your image of a garden will be drastically different to mine. The way someone pictures that word and its implications in their head can actually create a clearer version of the message than the author's own vision of the garden allowed. If the poet could see this interpretation in the other person's head, they may well say: "That view is closer to what I was intending than I actually see in my poem."

Going right back to your original quote:

quote:

it can't be officially interpreted? how about by the author himself? he can't do it either, right?...

Then yes, it's perfectly possible that the author's interpretation is not as close as someone else's. I was using the point that the author's word is the yard-stick to point out that there's no way of knowing some philosophical universal correct interpretation, and we can only go on the author's interpretation compared to that of others.

quote:

but don't mind me, as i'm the one who doesn't understand what he's debating about.

You're merely good at quoting parts out of context to make them look like contradictions. To quote "There's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" as if that contradicts the other two shows that you aren't following.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

at this thread and its jaunt into poetry.

quote:

Originally posted by Demoted at this thread and its jaunt into poetry.

Enjoy it. TA will never be so highbrow again.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But my point is that most authors don't lay down official interpretations, and poetry that does have one interpretation tends be very simplistic. A poet may not actually have the most reliable interpretation of their own poem, if you want to use your own philosophy on it. This can be due to both the failure of someone to analyse their own feelings accurately, the haziness of the meaning they're actually aiming for and also that different people may actually envisage the poet's point better than the poet themselves can. However, there's no way of determining the truly most accurate interpretation. So, as I said, the poet is the last word on how correct someone's interpretation is, but that doesn't mean the poet will ever lay down the official interpretation.

i didn't claim a poem has but one interpretation - i claimed it has one correct interpretation.
i didn't claim the poet would lay down an official interpretation either - i only claimed he is a viable source for such official interpretation.

btw, i hope you realize that this segment of your post completely contradicts your sentence that philosophy has nothing to do with this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Then yes, it's perfectly possible that the author's interpretation is not as close as someone else's. I was using the point that the author's word is the yard-stick to point out that there's no way of knowing some philosophical universal correct interpretation, and we can only go on the author's interpretation compared to that of others.

so what was the call to debate my knowledge of literature in the first place considering you essentially agree with my statement - especially when it was explained in two or three different ways in the thread already?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You're merely good at quoting parts out of context to make them look like contradictions. To quote "There's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" as if that contradicts the other two shows that you aren't following.

i was quoting 3 parts of your post that contradict your earlier point and making the entire discussion redundant, not 1 that is contradicted by the latter 2, hence i didn't quote out of relavant context, and they are in fact contradictions.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i didn't claim a poem has but one interpretation - i claimed it has one correct interpretation.

But there's no way of ever knowing a correct interpretation and thus it does not actually exist. It's a purely abstract thing, built out of philosophy that is irrelevant. Hence why there is no philosophy to this issue.

quote:

i didn't claim the poet would lay down an official interpretation either - i only claimed he is a viable source for such official interpretation.

But I've just shown why the poet can not be a totally viable source.

quote:

btw, i hope you realize that this segment of your post completely contradicts your sentence that philosophy has nothing to do with this issue.

It doesn't. I chose to extend the philosophy to show how it reaches an abstract conclusion. The realistic conclusion is that there is no official interpretation and even the poet cannot lay one down.

quote:

so what was the call to debate my knowledge of literature in the first place considering you essentially agree with my statement - especially when it was explained in two or three different ways in the thread already?

I don't essentially agree with it. I agree that a poet can define a definition for their own poem and that if you want to call authority on definitions then theirs is the yardstick, but I do not agree that a poet's definition is the "official" one and as a result, poetry has no official "correct" meaning at all.

quote:

i was quoting 3 parts of your post that contradict your earlier point and making the entire discussion redundant, not 1 that is contradicted by the latter 2, hence i didn't quote out of relavant context, and they are in fact contradictions.

You quote one that has absolutely fuck all to do with it, in agreement or otherwise, and you quote two more which don't actually mean the opposite, but merely look like they do if you aren't reading them.

Put simply: "The issue of whether poetry (or any art form) should have a correct interpretation is entirely down to the creator" does not mean the poet knows that correct definition. Some poets may well feel that there can be levels of accuracy in interpretations (especially if they're stream-of-consciousness poets who's own poetry derives from the subconscious and so they probably understand it less than an external observer), but that's merely talking about whether or not a poet wishes to grade interpretations. Most don't. It doesn't say a poet can come up with the correct interpretation themselves.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But there's no way of ever knowing a correct interpretation and thus it does not actually exist.

your example suggests otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's a purely abstract thing, built out of philosophy that is irrelevant. Hence why there is no philosophy to this issue.

the fact i can still viably dispute your thesis using philosophy shows that it is relevant aswell as potentially contained in the issue (disregarding the fact that philosophy could be used to analyze everything and hence is relavant to everything and contained within everything).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But I've just shown why the poet can not be a totally viable source.

in your example the poet had a correct interpretation to the poem - his own. he first used his authority to dispute a false interpretation, and later used his authority to incorporate someone else's view.

i never said the correct interpretation needs to be a static one.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It doesn't. I chose to extend the philosophy to show how it reaches an abstract conclusion. The realistic conclusion is that there is no official interpretation and even the poet cannot lay one down.

read above as to why philosophy is relavant, contained, and even realistic (thanks to your example) to the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't essentially agree with it. I agree that a poet can define a definition for their own poem and that if you want to call authority on definitions then theirs is the yardstick, but I do not agree that a poet's definition is the "official" one and as a result, poetry has no official "correct" meaning at all.

erm... how far is "official" from "authority" in your view here?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You quote one that has absolutely fuck all to do with it, in agreement or otherwise, and you quote two more which don't actually mean the opposite, but merely look like they do if you aren't reading them.

i'm sorry, but i don't see how "there's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" has absolutely fuck all to do with whether the creator of the work has the official interpretation to a work.

as to whether they are opposite to your first point that i should learn something about literature (which i perceived as a sarcastic way to say that i know nothing of literature) depends on whether i perceived you correctly: if i did, they are opposite; if i didn't, consider me as awaiting enlightenment.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

For perhaps the last time, in my opinion [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
is trance, while [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
is not. Did you notice the difference?

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T your example suggests otherwise.

Not really. It's an example of how someone else's interpretation may actually be closer to the meaning of the poem than the poet themselves can visualise. It merely suggests that the interpretation and how correct it is can be purely based on the person, which highlights why there is no correct interpretation, because you don't know what the correct interpretation is.

quote:

the fact i can still viably dispute your thesis using philosophy shows that it is relevant aswell as potentially contained in the issue (disregarding the fact that philosophy could be used to analyze everything and hence is relavant to everything and contained within everything).

You can "viably" dispute what, exactly? Your philosophy originally stated that the poet themselves can call an official interpretation, where I've merely used your own reasoning to suggest that this is not the case. What "ought" to be is merely abstract- it has no grounding in practicality. Any philosophy is irrelevant.

quote:

in your example the poet had a correct interpretation to the poem - his own. he first used his authority to dispute a false interpretation, and later used his authority to incorporate someone else's view.

No, that's distorting what I put. Either you misunderstand or you're changing it to suit your side. My example shows how the poet can gauge the accuracy of an interpretation, but not determine an ultimately "correct" one, simply because their own interpretation is not forced to be as correct as can be.

quote:

i never said the correct interpretation needs to be a static one.

A non-static correct interpretation is merely the same as saying many correct interpretations: in other words there is no one official interpretation because many can be accurate to some degree and there is no way of measuring that degree.

To say: "i claimed it has one correct interpretation" and then say that "one" apparently doesn't mean one, it means many is contradicting yourself.

quote:

erm... how far is "official" from "authority" in your view here?

Authority:
"An accepted source of expert information or advice"

quote:

i'm sorry, but i don't see how "there's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" has absolutely fuck all to do with whether the creator of the work has the official interpretation to a work.

Well for a start, I didn't create that poem. I nicked it as a handy example, and I doubt my source was the first to type those words in that order. Which is exactly my point: it's just two phrases strung together in poetry form. There's nothing to interpret because there's no depth, no message, no art. It's a joke in the form of a poem. It was concieved as a play on words, and thus it was not created to suggest anything.

quote:

as to whether they are opposite to your first point that i should learn something about literature (which i perceived as a sarcastic way to say that i know nothing of literature) depends on whether i perceived you correctly: if i did, they are opposite; if i didn't, consider me as awaiting enlightenment.

Well they aren't opposite to that at all. You could say they're the opposite to the perlocutionary effect of my post (IE: your interpretation that I was stating the opposite to your post), but even then I've shown why this is not the case.

For the record, it wasn't a sarcastic version of "You know nothing" although I delivered it in a fairly acidic way. I said it because your post sounded like a generalisation that poets can lay down the law on what their poem means. Certainly there's nothing about non-static official (surely an oxymoron?) interpretations in your line of arguing.

Basically, it was picking a hole in one of a couple of things you got wrong. Another one is about physics: while it's true that mankind didn't invent how the universe runs physically, much of physics are human created theoretical models that fit the evidence. Nobody actually knows if light is really a wave at all, but it fits the model in certain experiments. Just little things that strike me as over-arrogant assumption in your general steamrolling of the poor bastard.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Emily Dickinson makes shitty trance tracks; I can tell you that much.