An itch, once scratched may sleep
But will creep
Back.
The flame
Inflames
And we lack
The will
To be still
So tease
And please the inflammation.
Anticipation
Grows
And on dainty toes
Enters, and does prettily sigh,
“Try
One more time,
For to scratch an itch is truly divine”.
We pine for pleasure,
Act on desire, then repent at leisure.
How far (if at all) should a poet explain his (or her) work? I have always been of the view that poets should leave it to the interpretation of readers to determine what their verses mean. To explain all risks treating readers like young children who must be spoon fed. Furthermore, detailed explanations by the poet remove the joy experienced by many lovers of poetry of reaching their own conclusions concerning a poem’s meaning.
Recently, 2 people have expressed the view (on 2 separate occasions in face-to-face conversations) that explanations as regards a poem’s meaning (or what caused me to write it) would be helpful. During the 2 occasions on which I have given poetry readings, I have included a brief explanation concerning the poem’s origins. However I remain of the view that to furnish chapter and verse in respect of a poem’s meaning detracts from the enjoyment of reaching one’s own (often unique) conclusion. One gentleman with whom I discussed the matter suggested that notes could be appended to poems concerning their origin and/or meaning with a caveat that those who wished to come to their own conclusion should skip them. While this is an interesting idea, I don’t want to turn into a didact, I am, after all a poet not a teacher.
As always I would be interested in my reader’s views.
Kevin
An article in The Atlantic which argues the achievement of artificial intelligence is impossible until we can teach computers how not to forget. Humans learn new skills while retaining old ones. Computers in contrast tend to forget easily.
To me one of the major factors (perhaps the most significant factor of all) which separates human intelligence from that of computers is that we humans are conscious beings who understand the reasons for our actions. Of course there are those who behave in ways which demonstrate crass stupidity but this does not, in my view invalidate my contention that we are different from machines in that we possess the ability to comprehend. Computers and robots can learn and their ability to do so is increasing. However they can not, unlike humans comprehend the reason for such learning. They are not self-aware.
Even if we can teach a computer not to forget will this lead to true artificial intelligence? In my admittedly unscientific view (my degree is in history and politics, not science) the answer is no for to have true intelligence one requires consciousness and the ability to comprehend/analyse one’s own actions.
For the article please visit http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/teaching-a-computer-not-to-forget/389727/?utm_source=SFTwitter
At school I, along with my fellow pupils was encouraged to create a mini dictionary. Each time I discovered an unfamiliar word I would look it up in the dictionary and enter it into my little book. This practice kindled in me a love of words and to this day I still make a habit of looking up unfamiliar ones.
Yesterday I came across the word demythology. Turning to The Fontana Dictionary Of Modern Thought I found the following definition of demythologize, (a meaning for demythology isn’t rendered):
“Demythologize. To confess disbelief in the legends and mythological ideas present in the Bible, while translating the Bible’s message into a religious understanding compatible with modern science and philosophy …”. Yet another word to add to my vocabulary although not one I can envisage utilising any time soon.
K Morris - Poet 