Don’t ask Lisa to corroborate this: I’ve been making the effort to be calm and nonjudgmental in most things. I don’t mean to lose all sense of standards and decency. Only to try and “accept” the world in unselfish ways. That doesn’t mean that I don’t wish things might change. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be willing to do some changing. I just mean that there should be nothing angry about “being”, and nothing necessarily “angry” in reactions to being.
Anger is a vent sometimes. In that way it’s probably healthy, if it doesn’t cross certain lines… and it can also be used to fuel creative activity. But maybe you can train yourself to the point where anger becomes less and less of an emotional need. Even in the face of irrational behaviour and thinking. I guess that’s kind of my experiment. I’m sure it’s been done before many, many times.
That’s nonsense in reaction to some words by Noam Chomsky, quoting Bertrand Russell. I have to go to the source and come up with a complete post. But that’s where it comes from, anyway. It is (their words) something that should be believed, and when the effort is made it is calming.
Something unrelated I would also like to quote but lack: Borges and his terse, tangential, reaction to the statement “a poet must be a poem”. I provide you with an original paraphrase. A poet must be a poem in the same way that an architect must be a building, a politician a law, a pilot a flight?
I’m concerned about art and its presentation, and its association with people or ideas that can be marketed successfully. A poem does not need a poet to be a poem, but does a poet need to be a poem?
Maybe only when the level of fame and competency of the poet are both “low”, maybe not. This is something I’ve been considering. I’ll get back to you, maybe.