flotsam

[manfredvijars]

There are six lines of trochaic tetrameter, so Matt's poem is metred.
the lines..you should dance and... and just remember.. are repeated, which makes a repeat sound. Rhyme is a repeat sound, so the poem has rhyme .
Voila ! rhyme and metre. No problems Manfred.

You're drawing a very long bow there Mate ...

[Neville Briggs]

It's right brain stuff.

[Neville Briggs]

We don't see poetry in mathematics or quantum physics because there isn't any. These things are impersonal descriptions of " the machine ". Poetry can only come from the personal, which is both in unity with and different from, the machine.

[David Campbell]

Neville, as a mathematician, I have to disagree with you. Take the mathematical concept of infinity, for example. Would you really describe that as part of some 'machine'? There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. To me, that's not something that can be dismissed as a mere machine, with clearly identifiable parts. It's an awesome and strangely beautiful concept, one that lends itself very much to poetic ideas...as does the incredible difficulty surrounding our struggle to understand an infinite universe. Surely there's something intensely personal about that.

Mathematics is far more than a mechanical calculating instrument and has inspired a great deal of writing that might be called poetry-related (at least). Lewis Carroll (actually Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) was the mathematician who wrote Alice in Wonderland, an imaginative piece of writing if ever there was one, and there are those who argue that much of the story is based on the mathematics of the time. Have a look at this site to see this explored further: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

Cheers
David

[manfredvijars]

There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2.

Yes, but can we pick up the count from (infinity + 1), and will all operations still hold true?? ...

[Neville Briggs]

the incredible difficulty surrounding our struggle to understand an infinite universe. Surely there's something intensely personal about that.

Only if we can find what is both infinite and personal. The cosmos is infinite but not personal, we are personal but finite.
Where does the personal and infinite connect ?
( Actually the cosmos is not infinite because it had a beginning, could have an end ?)

on the provocative front - but yov've gotta blame Nev a bit too

What ??

I think that Matt, same as all of us, cannot live as if there is only a machine, Richard Dawkins is wrong. . We cannot accept that there is nothing but the cruel and meaningless machine. That is not true to what is, and we know it.

Matt , in his poem I think, tries to rise above the cruel machine by finding an experience more real to his person than the machine. Matt doesn't seem to find comfort in hope, but suggests comfort in experiencing a memory of what was once meaningful and and true to what is.

[keats]

Good job of sterilising poetry Nev. Matt's original poem was well done, just not rhyme and meter in the Australian Bush Poetry tradition. Although I enjoyed it, this highly intellectual nonsense being sprouted is what turns people off both Bush Poetry and this site.

I find no place for science in Bush Poetry, either do the readers and audiences. We will keep on writing constructive rhyme and meter. You do the maths. (wonderful pun there!)

Sorry to reign on your parade, Nev, but your wish to argue consistently about our craft is wearing very thin. Why don't you pop up what you consider all of we Bush Poets should be writing? Lead by example and show us/teach us this intellectual approach to Bush Poetry.

Just playing the (other) Devil's Advocate as you like to do. Nothing personal, mate.

Cheers

Neil

[vwalla]

I joined Bush Poetry for its simplicity ie No Politics ,no bitching, only good friends and a laugh, compassion and help for others when in strife and an appreciation of good straightforward poetry that is self explanatory .
Could we please get back to that
Cheers
Val W

[Heather]

There's a place in this world and for all views. Some people really enjoy the intellectual discussions. If it's not your thing you don't have to join in. You don't even have to read it... We can agree to disagree - that's called being grown up.

I see (& hear) only friends having a discussion and there is nothing wrong there - and I know they are laughing.

Heather

[keats]

Maybe that is why there are are so few of our 400 odd (some very odd, haha) members joining in here. I know a lot of people who don't come here because of the politics and non Bush Poetry views. There may be room on the Internet for ALL styles of poetry, but I took it that this was the Australian Bush Poetry Association site. Maybe I'm wrong, and perhaps I should leave it up to you all to fill the forums. Although with all the banter here between members, then SURELY someone can contribute views to the Magazine I seem to struggle to get submissions for.

As for my post to Nev, read it again with your tongue in your cheeks. lol

Just my view............

Cheers

Neil