What I’m interested in scientifically is understanding thought with computational precision,” he explained. “I mean, the romantic idea that poetry comes from this deep inarticulable ur-stuff is a nice idea, but I think it is essentially false. I think the mind is articulable and the heart probably knowable. Unless you’re a mystic and believe in a soul, which I don’t, you really don’t have any other conclusion you can reach besides that the mind is literally a computer.

Zachary Mason’s Calculus of Writing, Applied to a Classic – NYTimes.com

A bewildering thought – do any other writers of such critical acclaim espouse this view?

(via sarzha)

I don’t think I fit the above qualifications, but I most certainly espouse this view. We may fear that it robs something we love of its vitality, but the true challenge is to be ready to face such hard things in the world. Maybe poetry will still be good afterward, even if it is, indeed, just an extremely complex chemical reaction.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s