quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T "closer to the (correct) meaning of the poem" suggests there is a correct interpretation.

Er... which example are you referring to? The one I labelled "An example" doesn't contain that quote at all.

quote:

your thesis, as i said before. if you haven't noticed, most of this argument is utilizing philosophy.

I've only utilising it to dispel it.

quote:

please direct me to the post where you did that, i was just looking for one such post and noticed that almost all of your posts go "c" rather than "a+b=c".

"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."

Which I expanded in various other posts with lines to the effect of "There's no actual way of knowing what is the correct interpretation". But that bit there is the reasoning.

quote:

...accuracy of an interpretation in comparison with what? in reference to what? i stipulate what = the correct interpretation.

The what would be the poet's own interpretation. I've not suggested that the poet themselves will not have a good idea of what they themselves were aiming for, but I've shown that even a poet's interpretation may not be totally correct, and there's no way of knowing.

quote:

no, a non-static correct interpretation means that it's one subject to change, either due to changing times and meanings, or due to the poet being too short-sighted when he came up with his first interpretation.

It's not an issue of "short-sightedness". How you interpret anything is down to your personal experiences, memories and general personality. If you write a general description of a room, in poetry or prose (general because poetic imagery doesn't usually go "There were contempory leather sofas of Swedish design, black in colour, placed along the South-west wall opposite the window") and ask ten people to draw the room, you'll get ten different pictures. If you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable, someone else might actually draw a more cosy and comfortable room than what you have pictured.

quote:

a dynamic-interpretation has nothing to do with many-correct-interpretations.

But you've been suggesting that the poet's interpretation is correct. The poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personality. If changing times and meanings can change the "correct" interpretation, then after a while the poet will become incorrect, especially if they die. If you examine old poetry you get archaic terms and words which mean very different things now. This suggests that the common consensus of a word meaning becomes the yard-stick of correctness.

quote:

Official: "Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission."

Words can have many meanings, and I know perfectly well which one I was using: the definition I quoted (from a dictionary).

quote:

it's an example of how my maxim is correct in reference to 'bad poetry'

Didn't you say earlier than exceptions don't prove rules? If your maxim is correct with regards to that quality of poetry, there's a strong argument that it doesn't even apply to literature at all.

quote:

how can something be entirely down to the creator yet at the same breath, not something the creator can come up with?

The poet can be philosophical and say that there's an ultimately accurate interpretation out there. Or they could do what all poets do and say that there's no one correct interpretation. It's entirely down to them.

quote:

it was implied, unmentioned to avoid redundancy, as i believe (most) objects not-in-a-vacuum can't (for the most part) be both static and correct.

Eh? Are you applying the Theory of Relativity to poetry?

___________________
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 Psy-T genres (among other things) are tools at our disposal, why shouldn't we perfect their definitions and objectify them?

Because of the Russian Ballerina.

How does it go...

A reporter asks about the meaning of a part of the Ballerina's performance.

To which she replies:

'If I could say that in words, I wouldnt take the very great trouble of dancing it for you would I?'

Morale of the Story:

Words and Names are never perfect or even adequate mediums through which to convey meaning. Tending towards perfecting genre names is thus a waste of fucking time when you could just open your ears and listen instead.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Er... which example are you referring to? The one I labelled "An example" doesn't contain that quote at all.

i'm not referring to an example, i'm referring to what you wrote here:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 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:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I've only utilising it to dispel it.

does that 'not count' in some bizarre way?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J "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." Which I expanded in various other posts with lines to the effect of "There's no actual way of knowing what is the correct interpretation". But that bit there is the reasoning.

this is all assuming i'm arguing for one correct static interpretation, which is not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The what would be the poet's own interpretation. I've not suggested that the poet themselves will not have a good idea of what they themselves were aiming for, but I've shown that even a poet's interpretation may not be totally correct, and there's no way of knowing.

i'd like to recall a previous point about this:

quote:

Say the poet uses the word "garden" at a point. ...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."

"That view is closer to what I was intending than I actually see in my poem.", hence it's not in the poem.

sorry i missed it before.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's not an issue of "short-sightedness". How you interpret anything is down to your personal experiences, memories and general personality.

all of which are subject.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If you write a general description of a room, in poetry or prose (general because poetic imagery doesn't usually go "There were contempory leather sofas of Swedish design, black in colour, placed along the South-west wall opposite the window") and ask ten people to draw the room, you'll get ten different pictures. If you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable

this may be a misunderstanding, but: if you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable you would convey that to the people drawing the room via the poem.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J someone else might actually draw a more cosy and comfortable room than what you have pictured.

hence it's not in the poem.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But you've been suggesting that the poet's interpretation is correct. The poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personality.

the poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personal experiences, memories and general personality which are obviously subject to change, and change that interpretation to accord with the changes in his personal experiences, memories, and general personality...

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If changing times and meanings can change the "correct" interpretation, then after a while the poet will become incorrect, especially if they die. If you examine old poetry you get archaic terms and words which mean very different things now. This suggests that the common consensus of a word meaning becomes the yard-stick of correctness.

that rules out the changing times and meanings as a factor that affects the 'correct' interpretation (based on observation - the Iliad still means the same thing it did way back when for the most part, because it is read in context).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Didn't you say earlier than exceptions don't prove rules? If your maxim is correct with regards to that quality of poetry, there's a strong argument that it doesn't even apply to literature at all.

but it was not proven to be an exception as of yet, so far it's just an instance supporting the maxim's validity.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The poet can be philosophical and say that there's an ultimately accurate interpretation out there. Or they could do what all poets do and say that there's no one correct interpretation. It's entirely down to them.

being the egoistic creatures we are i'd say it's more likely the poet will hold his own interpretation to be the correct one (and this is a main point where we should appeal to philosophy to see whether he'd be right in doing so or not. luckily we're already debating that - so please don't neglect that aspect which i believe is the most important in this debate).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Eh? Are you applying the Theory of Relativity to poetry?

apparently so. why?

___________________
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)

Seriously what is this dick measuring contest you have going on here? Step back and look at just how far you have deviated from the original topic and how it has become more an issue of endless 1-upmanship instead of music and art.

pffff.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Words and Names are never perfect or even adequate mediums through which to convey meaning. Tending towards perfecting genre names is thus a waste of fucking time when you could just open your ears and listen instead.

"Words and Names are never perfect or even adequate mediums through which to convey meaning", hence using genre names is a waste of fucking time. yet you are here posting on a trance board.
hypocrisy.

___________________
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 Derivative Seriously what is this dick measuring contest you have going on here? Step back and look at just how far you have deviated from the original topic and how it has become more an issue of endless 1-upmanship instead of music and art. pffff.

no, it has become an aesthetics discussion. exactly what i was hoping for.

___________________
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)

Uh huh. Sure thing buddy. Whatever you say.

I'm gonna go and make some tunes...Have fun with your ruler.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i'm not referring to an example, i'm referring to what you wrote here

Ah right. It does imply there's a hypothetical correct interpretation, but at the same time shows how it cannot be found. A classic piece of featherweight philosophy is the tree in the forest. If you did have a perfect interpretation (hypothetically), you'd never know it and there'd be no way of knowing it.

quote:

does that 'not count' in some bizarre way?

Well it comes to the same conclusion as taking a practical outlook, so the philosophy seems irrelevant to me.

Reality = Philosophy/Philosophy
=> Reality = 1

quote:

this is all assuming i'm arguing for one correct static interpretation, which is not the case.

It's not the case now. There was nothing for several posts even mentioning static or dynamic.

quote:

i'd like to recall a previous point about this: "That view is closer to what I was intending than I actually see in my poem.", hence it's not in the poem. sorry i missed it before.

It's in the poem if you put it there. No interpretations are in the poem- only the words which can suggest them.

quote:

all of which are subject.

Right. So if the very things that affect how you percieve a poem are subject. So the interpretation is subject. So there is no correct interpretation.

quote:

This may be a misunderstanding, but: if you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable you would convey that to the people drawing the room via the poem. hence it's not in the poem.

Do you seriously think when a poet describes something they're aiming for the reader to percieve exactly the same room or garden or whatever that the poet does? And if they don't then they're percieving something not in the poem and thus they're incorrectly interpreting it? No. The poet writes words that suggest a warm, cosy room. If someone pictures a room like that, no matter what form it takes then they have a valid interpretation, even if they've visualised something very different to the poet.

quote:

the poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personal experiences, memories and general personality which are obviously subject to change, and change that interpretation to accord with the changes in his personal experiences, memories, and general personality...

I don't think this is true. For a start, the poet may never read the poem again, and also, speaking personally, I tend to visualise the same thing in a poem as the first time I read it, no matter how much later on in time I visit it. Either way, this definition of non-static does not alter the conditions of the debate like you seem to suggest.

quote:

that rules out the changing times and meanings as a factor that affects the 'correct' interpretation (based on observation - the Iliad still means the same thing it did way back when for the most part, because it is read in context).

But you just said otherwise:

quote:

no, a non-static correct interpretation means that it's one subject to change, either due to changing times and meanings, or due to the poet being too short-sighted when he came up with his first interpretation.

And I've already said why viewing an interpretation as "short-sighted" is wrong, so I really don't see what your clarification of "non-static" does to change the argument.

quote:

but it was not proven to be an exception as of yet, so far it's just an instance supporting the maxim's validity.

The amount of poetry with nothing open to interpretation is miniscule. In addition, the fact that such a poem has nothing to interpret is evident in it- it is an inherent property.

quote:

being the egoistic creatures we are i'd say it's more likely the poet will hold his own interpretation to be the correct one (and this is a main point where we should appeal to philosophy to see whether he'd be right in doing so or not. luckily we're already debating that - so please don't neglect that aspect which i believe is the most important in this debate).

If poets held tha their own interpretation was correct, then literary criticism probably wouldn't exist and poetry would not be popular, as we'd all listen to the party line from the poet, apply it to the poem and move on.

quote:

apparently so. why?

Well it's crazy to assume that physical laws apply to things that cannot be modelled physically. If you argument is genuinely that I should have assumed that you meant "non-static" entirely due to an analogous application of Relativity, you're a nutcase, mate.

___________________
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 Ah right. It does imply there's a hypothetical correct interpretation, but at the same time shows how it cannot be found. A classic piece of featherweight philosophy is the tree in the forest. If you did have a perfect interpretation (hypothetically), you'd never know it and there'd be no way of knowing it.

i'll drop this point, as it leads to a circle (right back to the authority of the poet).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's not the case now. There was nothing for several posts even mentioning static or dynamic.

we've already been through this (and will expand on it at the end of the post)

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Right. So if the very things that affect how you percieve a poem are subject. So the interpretation is subject. So there is no correct interpretation.

sorry, that was meant to read "subject to change", supposing you read it as such - the interpretation's being subject to change does not lead to the inference that there is no correct interpretation.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Do you seriously think when a poet describes something they're aiming for the reader to percieve exactly the same room or garden or whatever that the poet does? And if they don't then they're percieving something not in the poem and thus they're incorrectly interpreting it? No. The poet writes words that suggest a warm, cosy room. If someone pictures a room like that, no matter what form it takes then they have a valid interpretation, even if they've visualised something very different to the poet.

not as a general rule, i dont. we were working with your line "If you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable..." - an explicit delcaration of intent.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think this is true. For a start, the poet may never read the poem again, and also, speaking personally, I tend to visualise the same thing in a poem as the first time I read it, no matter how much later on in time I visit it.

being dynamic doesnt suggest change is inevitable, it only suggests change is viable, at least that is how i understand it in this context.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Either way, this definition of non-static does not alter the conditions of the debate like you seem to suggest.

how so?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But you just said otherwise: And I've already said why viewing an interpretation as "short-sighted" is wrong, so I really don't see what your clarification of "non-static" does to change the argument.

lol, yes, i just conceded a point to you, does that happen so rarely that you thought i was somehow still debating that point?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The amount of poetry with nothing open to interpretation is miniscule. In addition, the fact that such a poem has nothing to interpret is evident in it- it is an inherent property.

that's not what i meant. i meant that the maxim's validity at large is still being debated by us, therefore that instance is not yet an exception.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If poets held tha their own interpretation was correct, then literary criticism probably wouldn't exist and poetry would not be popular, as we'd all listen to the party line from the poet, apply it to the poem and move on.

that's assuming the poet will indeed disseminate his interpretation, which is nowhere implied.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well it's crazy to assume that physical laws apply to things that cannot be modelled physically. If you argument is genuinely that I should have assumed that you meant "non-static" entirely due to an analogous application of Relativity, you're a nutcase, mate.

what's wrong with the following statement?
an interpretation to a poem can only be both correct and static if it exists in a (mental) vacuum.

___________________
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 RebeL9 just so you don't get this wrong. alot of the old trance tunes are quite repetetive and rhythmic compared to the tunes of today. back then there were no 3 min breaks and screaming bitches shouting out stuff about lost love and eternity.

yeah i know. I think you told me that before or at least somebody has.

quote:

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

If you hadn't told me that those clips were trance I would have thought the first clip was acid and the second clip breakbeats. I think the very first clip you posted, not these, was a better example.

This is just beyond absurd already...

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]