P OR NOT P by Eugene Ostashevsky
1.Excuse me, is this P or ¬P, the sky or not the sky, the building or not the building?Does the building imply the sky, does the sky imply the building,what does the not-building imply?
There are waves to one side of the building and a boat.We stepped down into the boat and sailed away.
We sailed past an island where Dave Cameron stood reading his poetry.We sailed past an island where Brandon Downing stood reading his poetry.We sailed past an island where Macgregor Card stood reading his poetry.
So much poetry for one day!
2.SOME QUESTIONS:Are there books in the building? Is there a book on fire in the building?Is there a book on fire in a book on fire in the building?Is this the beginning of number?
SOME ANSWERS:The beginning of number is song. The song is not about anything. It gave birth to the world.The world is not about anything.
SOME COMMENTS:Animals gather around the song. They listen, tilting their heads.They have large eyes. We can count the animals.
3."What do we do when the song ends for somebody what do we doDo we say, Don't go what will I do if you doDo we run to the doctor and cry, Give me an MRI, doctor! What he hasI might have it too Do we lie around despondent and blueO why do you go, why do you go There's so little time left
"Let us sit down, me and you Let me help you sit downbecause I am now a man and for you it's hard even to sit downWhat do we do now, what do we do Let us speak, me and youWe never learned to speak, me and you Let us start, ma-ma da-daYou say The Metamorphosis is about dyingLet us sit on this rock, me and you I say, ma-ma da-daWe live in Brooklyn We have a dog"
This is the song as heard / unheard by the animals. By some of the animals. By none of the animals. There are no animals.
There are only points, each at the convergence of an infinity of structures. The structures appear to be of metal. They oscillate. They make noise.
4.What is mathematics to animals? Is P or ¬P truefor all animals? Does 1+1=2for all animals? Is there a me and youfor all animals? What is
mathematics to animals? What are animalsto mathematics? Take away mathematicsand there are no animals. Take away animalsand there is no mathematics.
The animals gather for a concert of mathematics. We sail past them.They are capable of love. We sail past them.
5.We sail and we repeat. What do we repeat? Words.What are these words? There is a word for skyand there is a word for building.
What do they mean? They mean skyand building. The sky is blue.The building is pink and white.
Eugen Ostashevsky teaches English at New York University. He moved to the United States from Russia to the United States with his family when he was a child. He holds a Phd in Comparative Literature from Standford University. During his time there, he delved into the complex world of early twentieth century Russian poetry. In addition to translating works, which he still continues to do today, he particularly focused on Russian absurdist poets of the 1920s and 1930s.
There are certain reappearing traits in Ostashevsky's poetry, much like there are for most poets. Some of the more complex ones deal with verbal relationships to mathematical proofs and allusions to philosophers and mythical creatures. Ostashevsky is also immensely humorous and a very satirical, witty writer. This poem is from his book The Last DJ Spinoza. The real Baruch Spinoza, if we all tap into our AP MEH knowledge, was a Dutch philosopher from that special period in time called the Enlightenment. Remember his book Ethics? In it, he asks and reasons through such simple questions as what are emotions? (He actually single handedly defined all his emotions in this book). Spinoza is a very complex person and his philosophy, however fascinating, is very hard to explain.
The reason you should know these things about Spinoza is that the speaker of this poem is Ostashevsky's voive alter-ego, DJ Spinoza. In this book, DJ Spinoza is a sort of Monty Python inspired epic hero, who is based on a lot of the reasonings of the real Baruch Spinoza. He mingles with other fictional/mythical/popular characters, including Flipper the dolphin, a Griffon(begriffon), and a creature inspired by his toddler nephew called the Peepeesauraus. Of course, it wouldn't be an Ostashevsky work if DJ Spinoza didn't run into other poets and philosophers in some of his adventures.
This is a fascinating poem. Don't read too into the faulty reasoning however; remember what was said earlier about Ostashevsky's wittiness.
Find a phrase, line, or stanza in the poem where Ostashevsky uses repitition, sarcasm,extended syntax, logic,false reasoning, or sectioning (or a combination of all of them) to create poetry and not philosophy, even though some could consider it philosophy in poetry. How are these effective ways in which to assert the overall constricting, trapped yet imaginative mood of the poem? Would it make a difference if he had used a rhyme scheme or an acrostic instead?
I encourage you, if you want to, to click on this link for entertainment. Eugene Ostashevsky reads this poem in a set of poems he delivered at the UC Berkley lunch poems series. P or not P is read precisely at the time 30:53.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIcO6JnZUkU
14 comments:
This poem was fun to read! It reminded me a lot of geometry, when we drew venn diagrams and discussed the following: If A, then B. If A, then not B. If not A, then B. If not A, then not B. Likewise, does this poem fit into P, or not P?
This poem is very scattered yet very structured and at first glance reminds me much of a mathematical proof because of the way Ostashevsky states something and then makes a new inference based on that statement. The use of Spinoza as the title of his anthology was a great reference because in Ethics, Spinoza asserts his claim that all things, including God and feelings, could be explained through proofs.
But, as I said, this poem is also scattered and this aspect makes it a poem rather than a proof, and Ostashevsky utilizes extremely simple syntax to do so. With the lines, "This is the song as heard / unheard by the animals. By some of the animals. By none of the animals. There are no animals," he uses simple words. It seems like a child is speaking and trying to reason his way through the world, but there is much deeper introspection than that. It also reminded me a lot of the stream-of-consciousness type narration employed by Faulkner, and he uses this simplicity so that the meaning can be better understood.
I think that a rhyme scheme would have disrupted the layering in this poem; because the words used are so precise, forcing them into rhyme patterns would have disrupted the structure.
For me, this poem was very mind boggling. As Meera said, it reminds me a lot of Geometry with the comparisons and contrasts of A and B and letters and words. I was never good at Geometry, so I'm going to give it my best at this mathmatical based poem.
Repetition is very prominent in Ostashevsky's poem. He specifically uses "what do we do" over and over again. The constant repetition of this phrase sounds urgent and concerned, and like Coleen said, scattered.
I know irony wasn't a choice of things in the poem to depict but I found this phrase highly ironic. "What do we repeat? Words.What are these words?" Its ironic, especially because he proves such a point by it. All throughout his poem he has used repitition, but why? It really leaves readers, or maybe just me, pondering that fact.
If Ostashevsky had used a rhyme scheme in his poem, the entire point and meaning would be shattered. This poem serves a purpose how it is, and forcing a rhyme scheme into it would disrupt the perfection he has achieved through the scattered and imaginative mood of the poem.
"P or Not P" was very overwhelming at first, but as I read through, I started liking the jumbled mess. It perfectly combines grief, extreme rhyme, syntax, and references to logical proofs.
I noticed the most in how each of his lines were connected in one way or another to the one previous of it. This was done either by repetition of a subject or just connecting the lines by a relative subject. For example, "Does the building imply the sky, does the sky imply the building,what does the not-building imply?
There are waves to one side of the building and a boat.We stepped down into the boat and sailed away." These lines were different yet still had connective tissue through the mentioning of a building in both lines. This strategy of repetition is confusing but it is what makes me at the least interested.
I think that a rhyme pattern would've made the poem less jumbled and scattered but doing that would destroy the whole uniqueness and meaning of the poem.
These are really great y'all. I'm glad that you guys liked it and found similar mathematical/logical concepts mentioned in the poem and the significance of the name DJ Spinoza.
***But just so everyone knows, there will be an extension for this blog. I imagine that we'll go over it in class tomorrow.
"Let us speak, me and you
We never learned to speak, me and you Let us start, ma-ma da-da
You say The Metamorphosis is about dying
Let us sit on this rock, me and you I say, ma-ma da-da
We live in Brooklyn We have a dog"
This is the song as heard / unheard by the animals. By some of the animals. By none of the animals. There are no animals."
Eugene Ostashevsky wrote that "All things are one thing but the irrationals are something else. Haven't you heard of the diagnol proof?" Through out "P or not P" Ostashevsky tries to conclude this statement with his fluent figurative language. "P or Not P," perfectly combines alogic, grief, extreme rhyme, and achingly simple syntax. It is like working a math proof, as meera said,or a blog and a healthy sense of wonder and doom. It's like through his poetry he is trying to depict a theory that is not always easy to understand but through his simple language and dip into his sub-conscious the reader can elude to their own answers.
This poem was fascinating. I have never read poetry that kept you interested throughout the reading and keep you thinking after the reading. After watching the link to Ostashevsky's reading it's easy to see the intensity and passion behind his words that a reader would not be able to see after just one reading of his works.
"Let us speak, me and you
We never learned to speak, me and you Let us start, ma-ma da-da
You say The Metamorphosis is about dying
Let us sit on this rock, me and you I say, ma-ma da-da
We live in Brooklyn We have a dog"
This is the song as heard / unheard by the animals. By some of the animals. By none of the animals. There are no animals."
Eugene Ostashevsky wrote that "All things are one thing but the irrationals are something else. Haven't you heard of the diagnol proof?" Through out "P or not P" Ostashevsky tries to conclude this statement with his fluent figurative language. "P or Not P," perfectly combines alogic, grief, extreme rhyme, and achingly simple syntax. It is like working a math proof, as meera said,or a blog and a healthy sense of wonder and doom. It's like through his poetry he is trying to depict a theory that is not always easy to understand but through his simple language and dip into his sub-conscious the reader can elude to their own answers.
This poem was fascinating. I have never read poetry that kept you interested throughout the reading and keep you thinking after the reading. After watching the link to Ostashevsky's reading it's easy to see the intensity and passion behind his words that a reader would not be able to see after just one reading of his works.
This poem intrigues me, especially because it doesn't even seem like poetry sometimes, but more an exercise in logic, reasoning, and philosophy. Ostashevsky obviously has a very unique style of writing.
The poet uses simple words and much repetition to create a poem that is proof-like in form. For example, he says, "What is
mathematics to animals? What are animalsto mathematics? Take away mathematicsand there are no animals. Take away animalsand there is no mathematics." Ostashevsky employs repetition here to stress the connection he sees between animals and mathematics. His logic seems like faulty reasoning at first. Why would taking math away cause animals to disappear, or vice versa? However, with further thought, this line of reasoning makes sense. If there were no animals (including humans), who would do or care about math? Ostashevsky reasons through questions like these throughout the poem, relying on repetition and the randomness of his thoughts to prove that he is writing poetry, not a philosophical discourse. The repetition gives the reader a feeling of urgency and insistence, like the speaker is trying to reason out something important. The whimsical phrases, like "concert of mathematics", give the poem a dreamy mood.
Changing the poem's structure, like making it rhyme, would ruin it. Its scattered thoughts and proof-like structure are very purposeful and add another layer to the reasoning and logic in the poem.
"P OR NOT P" might be one of the more confusing poems that I have ever encountered. However, I'm going to make an honest effort.
"What do we do when the song ends for somebody what do we doDo we say, Don't go what will I do if you doDo we run to the doctor and cry, Give me an MRI, doctor!..."
In this particular part of his poem, Ostashevsky uses a lack of punctuation and run-on sentences to convey a sense of panic, urgency, and confusion. The song he is referring to is life. Death is a disconcerting thing to humans. We cannot always reason through it like the mathematical problems referenced elsewhere in the poem. When someone dies we begin to think "That could be me...." However, while Ostashevsky addresses these feelings, he does not identify with them. Death, like life, is a part of an unavoidable natural cycle. He feels that there are better ways to deal with such fearful sentiments.
Great job guys! Everyone has made interesting points about the variety of literary devices that Ostashevsky uses. Feel free to continue to pick out examples. If you'd like, comment upon the way that Ostashevsky reads his poem. Is it how you imagined it would be read? Is it more intersting when read out loud?
I watched the video of him reading the poem, and I didn't expect for him to read it as he did; however, he read it better than the way I had imagined. The poem itself is very chaotic and stream-of-conciousness like and he did well in portraying that. As he read it, his tone built in intensity and I was getting streassed just listening to him. He sounded almost frightened with all the questions running through his head at one time, trying to decipher what his mind plagued him with. The poem kind of reminds me of Fight Club (the book) with all of the confusing questions and avant-garde philosophies.
"The animals gather for a concert of mathematics. We sail past them. They are capable of love. We sail past them."
I always find a different meaning in these lines each time I read them. I can never decide if its supposed to be sad or not, because it is a truth. Is truth sad then? I think thats what Ostahevsky implies, along with reality being so complex and infinite that it is almost boring, yet confused. Its interesting to me to, how he builds upon Spinoza's ideas, in jest and in all seriousness.
I like your fight club reference Abby, I agree.
Anne Stuart, it is interesting to see how many of us make a connection between pacing and punctuation instinctively. Especially at the point in the poem, where you still find yourself not at all wondering whether or not the sky implies the building anymore. You don't want any of these morbid images or moods to be explained because you recognize that its an aspect of Ostashevsky's humor, dark albeit.
I found this poem very confusing at first, and questioned whehter it was even a poem or not. After reading more than the first stanza, however, I was able to see its humor, particularly through the false logic. Although Ostashevsky's writing style is unusual, through the broken up, almost frazzled wording he employs, the poem could be realistically mistaken for raw thoughts. During his evaluation of the animals, Ostashevsky says, "This is the song as heard / unheard by the animals. By some of the animals. By none of the animals. There are no animals." Through this use of false reasoning, Ostashevsky creates poetry through opening up the development of unaltered thoughts for readers to see, rather than merely stating and defending a philosophical point of view. Through using this method in his poetry, he not only distinguishes himself amongst many other Russian poets, but also makes his poems more effective. If his poems were to contain either rhyme or reason, the natural rhythm of the poem would be disrupted and the thoughts would be tainted.
Although this poem is very intimidating at first, it was exciting to read because it engaged my mind. Ostashevsky incorporated deep philosophical undertones into this complex poem along with various kinds of literary devices. The variety of the techniques he used made this poem even more interesting and unique.
One of the more prominent techniques Ostashevsky employed was repetition. He constantly reuses the same words and phrases which emphasizes the importance of what he is trying to convey to the readers. A primary example of this is when he wrote "We sailed past an island where Dave Cameron stood reading his poetry.We sailed past an island where Brandon Downing stood reading his poetry.We sailed past an island where Macgregor Card stood reading his poetry." These three sentences have the exact same structure and diction, except he inserted different poets in every line. This solidifies the imagery of the poem and highlights the different poets that Ostashevsky was influenced by. Repetition definately enhances the frazzled, chaotic tone of the piece.
I feel that a strict rhyming structure would take away from the overall success of this work. This poem is extremely unique for completely abandoning all poetic structure and is the reason it is so brilliant.
Thanks so much Coleen and Deidre for the awesome poem and the wonderful feedback you gave the students! I liked the inclusion of the media clip as well. F Bell, please not that we are working toward having the moderators control the commentary in this manner! This will be an expectation during the next BLOG cycle!
Post a Comment